ed on this list as simple sarcasm. There
are more evolved ways of using it
cheers
Kim Jones
On 11/11/2008, at 11:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> first laugh on this list :) or maybe on this list and this universe
> only /o\
>
> 2008/11/11 Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PRO
On 11/11/2008, at 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Now we have fun and you already want make it serious? I guess you are
> joking!
>
> B.
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Nov 2008, at 01:50, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes - humour is according to thinking gu
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
What's your definition of "reality"?
It is whatever it is.
It should be the roots of our knowledge and beliefs. It is what makes
us bet on the physical realities, on the psychological rea
lity, to
> CONFIRMATION?"
>
> On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I knew it
>>
>> "Row row row your boat
>> Gently down the stream
>> Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily
>> Life is but a dream."
>&g
> I thought you weren't serious.
I'm both serious and unserious. I exist in an infinitude of brain
states over this. Humour, lateral thinking and discontinuity
(provocation) often gives birth to previously hidden directions in
thinking. A well placed jocular statement can often sh
On 24/11/2008, at 1:50 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
> It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict
> themselves. They do absolutely "everything" except that. When they
> say "everything" in a "Theory of Everything", that's what they
> actually mean: Everything except physicists
On 28/11/2008, at 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I have just finished the explanation of an argument
> (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that
> I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there is
> some primitive stuffy universe from which consc
A representation of a thing (say MGA) is as good (ie as authentic) as
the thing being represented.
Yes?
Autrement dit:
there is no especial difference between the movie and the subject (of
the movie) - where the movie is a more or less "complete" (whatever
that means) representation of t
On 01/12/2008, at 6:21 AM, M.A. wrote:
> Is it the connotation of "schizophrenic" that you don't like?
The term schizophrenic is an incredibly misused/misunderstood
adjective. It specifically DOES NOT mean multiple personality
(disorder) which is the common coin usage (ie not in a medico-
On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Kim,
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
&g
On 02/12/2008, at 9:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:16:27AM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> Genial. Faites-entrer les gosses
>>
>>
>> Kim
>>
>
> Speaking of which, my son who is now 10, but was 8 when I wrote
Maybe he was simply wrong (the son might have looked
exactly like his own son) or maybe he was lying, because for some
reason he didn't want to operate on him (he could have felt bad or
drunk alcohol before).
The son could have two fathers - one of them could have been his
adoptive father. Or
it
always did
If Science gives you your emotional thrills then that is because it
always did
If Philosophy gives you your emotional thrills then that is because it
always did
etc.
To supplement all of this, try learning JAPANESE or CHINESE when you
hit your 70s and then you will open up
On 06/12/2008, at 12:59 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>
>> Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can
>> describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and
>> all
>> the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to
>> address an 'eternal' if
On 06/12/2008, at 6:18 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>
>> I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of "chaos"
>> - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt
>> the stance of always launching your prediction from a single
>> present -
>> the one you happen to find
On 07/12/2008, at 3:00 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Kim Jones wrote:
>> On 06/12/2008, at 6:18 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of
>>>> "chaos"
>>>> - something that
On 07/12/2008, at 4:29 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
(The Court Jester wrote):
What you cannot say is what is determining the order
in
the chaos once it arrives. That's closer to what I mean.
2 men start to dig a hole. They are instructed to make it reach a
depth of 5 f
Ok - Bruno, I will take this very slowly. You have a habit of saying
10,000 fascinating things in one post and staggering me, so one at a
time:
On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain why
> I think that: IF we ass
On 11/12/2008, at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain
>>> why
>>> I think that: IF we assume that we are machine,
>>
>>
>> Never understood what people meant by "a mach
Bruno
Thanks for the very useful summary and the warning that we might be
zooming in on fractal infinity - no way will that happen from here on!
>
> The mechanist hypothesis is the hypothesis that we are machine so
> that, in principle, any part of us can be replaced. There is no
> special
Blame me if you want...
I'm just trying to see whether the exposition can be made with a good
deal less number-spinning
Truth is, most people - given the choice - would probably prefer to
avoid language pretty much all together -
for the dangers you so aptly characterise
Language is a bag o
On 15/12/2008, at 2:16 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
> An ability to deny self-awareness as a marker of self awareness. You
> can use this as a logical bootstrap to sort things out.
>
> I like it!
>
> cheers
> colin hales
Anyone remember George Levy? Here is what he said about this:
..this only p
On 16/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> You have accepted the artificial digital brain.
They got the colour wrong but that's OK - it would only have been
worth it if I'd gone for the transparent cranium option as well
> This means that you
> say "yes" to the docto
On 16/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> "KIM 2" is really the "2)" of the plan. See below(*)
>
> I propose to proceed by little steps, under the form of questions.
>
> MEC is correct (by assumption). This makes the following thought
> experiment possible. You get a new job, but the jo
On 18/12/2008, at 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Gosh, Kim, don't tell me that you will enjoy the full UDA, because
> this would, not doubt, trig in me a strong motivation for explaining
> to you the arithmetical version of the UDA; that is; how to explain
> the UDA to the universal machi
On 19/12/2008, at 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> you think it's impolite to think of a machine as a sexless "it" (as
>> in
>> Anglais) -- yet you quite arbitrarily assign a feminine gender to the
>> word!!! What's so feminine about a machine anyway? What if the
>> machine
>> is gay? "It" m
math-view). It
> broadened since their time. This list is at a much higher (broader)
> level than it was for the named mathematicians.
Well - those mathematicians didn't have "Grand Theft Auto-IV" and
iPods to play with, so how could they possibly have as broad a field
Bruno,
things are starting to hang together in my new digital brain (bright
yellow)
you wrote the plan:
---
A) UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument)
1) I explain that if you are a machine, you are already immaterial.
---
Fine. This thought is merely surpr
On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
>
>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
>> machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
>> is governed by rules and has a defin
The Day The Earth Stood Still - remake version in cinemas now
Just saw it - at the very first session at 9.30 AM.
This film is a whole lot better than the reviews make out and a whole
lot better than I expected.
Keanu Reeves is Keanu as usual and only acts with his left eyebrow,
but this wo
On 27/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> nd sometimes, even that is not enough, and you have to climb on the
> higher infinities. I think Kim was asking for an example of well-
> defined notions which are not effective. The existence of such non
> effective objects is not obvious at all
On 30/12/2008, at 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> Still OK to continue? You are ready?
"I am good to go!"
>
>
> Let me sum up so far. I suggest you look at the UDA slide.
Have teleported it to my screen...
>
>
> For those who don't have it, and want follow: it is the PDF
On 28/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> With
> Everett everything becomes clearer: nature does not collapse the wave,
> and thus, does not provide any examples of a machine generating truly
> random events. Randomness appears in the mind of the multiplied
> observers, exactly like in
On 31/12/2008, at 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 Dec 2008, at 02:22, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> "I am good to go!"
>
>
> I suspect this is not english :)
It isn't. It's American ;-) (ducks quickly, like George Bush the o
On 01/01/2009, at 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I have also a theory according to which british humour is obtined by
> taking classical logic seriously enough. The comical effect comes
> from the fact that in the real work classical logic NEVER works.
The Court Jester's First Law:
Co
Edge Question 2009: "What Will Change Everything?"
http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html#smolin
What do we think about this? Smolin seems to disagree with most of
what we are on about on this list. My mind remains open in all
directions, particularly as Smolin appears to be enjoying substan
Bruno,
In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience)
the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that
I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary
transmission interval) has elapsed between my annihilation and
reconsti
On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I admire too. Kim is courageous.
> Well, for the tenacity we will see :)
>
>
Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am
devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my
ability to sit and cogit
On 10/01/2009, at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> The question is how is the simulated observer made conscious of the
> passage of
> (simulated) time. If you just look a momentary machine states,
> ignoring their
> causal/temporal relations, how will they create the consciousness of
> time
On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>> I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are
>> incompatible,
>> though.
>
> Is that because, under materialism, consciousness depends on causal
> links?
>
> Brent
>
>
supernatural causal links
enter the hand wavers
Kim
On 19/01/2009, at 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 18-janv.-09, à 11:32, Kim Jones a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are
&g
On 21/01/2009, at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 13:56, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>> But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism
>> doesn't acknowledge any form of comp "immateriality" except
>> according
eers,
Kim
---
Creativity usually means finding a way of being right by being wrong.
Being right
by being right is not creativity. It merely offers what is already
understood. - Kim Jones
Email:
kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@mac.com
Web:
http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Pleni
On 22/01/2009, at 3:50 AM, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Kim,
>
>> the uncomputability of this issue. Why should the mind be limited
>> to the
>> computable? Clearly it is not.
>
> So you deny Step 1 again? You say no to the doctor?
In fact I have 'multiple personality disorder' - from Thursday
> On 21 Jan 2009, at 05:46, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> OK. But keep in mind that consciousness is unique in the sense of
>>> knowing that it cannot know its Turing emulability level (yet can
>>> bet).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
On 24/01/2009, at 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Have you find the time to take a look on UN-16 UN-24 in
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume1CC/4z1_1sansp.pdf
>
> After all, you know some french, isn't it? Take it easy, I will
> explain all this to you, beginning from ze
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090122141137.htm
cheers,
Kim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups
On 31/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> I've also tried to dig through both Bruno's thesis with the help of
>> google translator. It works for a while but soon one hits a wall
>> with a
>> difficult sentence/paragraph which is hard to understand even if it
>> stands as the author i
The Templeton Foundation gives sizeable grants to projects for
reconciling science and religion, and awards a yearly prize of two
million dollars to a philosopher or scientist whose work highlights
the "spiritual dimension of scientific progress."
Go for it, Bruno! If Paul Davies can do it
Bruno, our posts just crossed each other.
I'm still here and listening and thinking hard.
We are busy, as you say, but listening and thinking about the
realities has to be part of that, so I ensure that I set aside time to
follow your reasoning.
I may translate part of the Brussels thesis s
Trans. Kim Jones (extract only)
1.1 Mechanist Philosophies
1.1.1 Different types of Mechanism
I distinguish the following mechanist hypotheses:
BEHAVIOURIST MECHANISM
Some machines can behave as thinking beings (living, conscious etc.)
(BEH-MEC)
STRONG MECHANISM
Some machines can think
available?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Kim Jones
> wrote:
>> Trans. Kim Jones (extract only)
>>
>> 1.1 Mechanist Philosophies
>> 1.1.1 Different types of Mechanism
>> I distinguish the following mechanist hypotheses:
>> BEHAVI
On 05/02/2009, at 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> Still interested?
>
> I must say I was wrong.
Only a scientist admits he can be wrong. Everyone else will risk their
life in the attempt to "prove" how right they are.
How "right" can one be? Considering the emotion and passi
On 07/02/2009, at 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Music begins with silence. The silence that
>> precedes the upbeat is part of the music. Sometimes the Nothing is
>> inserted into the midst of the music, Listen to the opening 20 or so
>> bars of Claude Debussy's "L'après midi d'un faune" for
price but might be worth it.
Looking forward to the creative maths assignments - but take your
time; we only live once but we live forever
Best
Kim
On 10/02/2009, at 2:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2009, at 04:47, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>> (see Broukère 1982),
&g
We only live once, but we live forever
There is no afterlife - only life eternal
Kim Jones
On 11/02/2009, at 4:27 AM, Michael Rosefield wrote:
> I wrote it for my friends, but feel free to criticise!
> http://rosyatrandom.livejournal.com/3544
Do it Nisheeth - try and answer the Burt Bacharach (actually the Hal
David) Question: "What's It All About, Alfie?"
Everybody will certainly read you. Expect frank feedback from this
list as you already know.
Good luck.
Kim
On 14/02/2009, at 11:14 AM, Nisheeth Srivastava wrote:
>
>
> Hi
Consciousness" we are all hypnotized by
at this time?
PS - expect to post to this thread an instalment of the continuation
of the translation by tonight - am being extremely careful to get it
dead right to avoid any ambiguities.
regards,
Kim Jones
People often confuse belief in a rea
h? What's that? Don't we already do that? etc.
cheers,
Kim Jones
There are no surprising facts about reality, only models of it that
are surprised by facts
Email:
kmjco...@mac.com
kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Web:
http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music
Phone:
(612) 938
real one - not a bullshit one as they already exist) and I'll be one
of the first to congratulate you. Perhaps Steve Wolfram (and the
Internet) deserve a bit more of your consideration than just this?
best regards,
Kim
On 10/03/2009, at 12:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
d that it would be
best to teach all the sciences as one. Increasingly, the Internet is
the EXPERT and we are the fuzzy, creative innovators who design new
fields of endeavour with our vast realms of knowledge. A kind of
emergence phenomenon, if you will.
Kim Jones
On 11/03/2009, at 2:40 AM, J
On 23/03/2009, at 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> And why does plant constructs altered states of consciousness
> molecules? In my opinion it has all to do with the incredibly complex
> relationships that plant have with animals, in general, and insects in
> particular. Many plants have to detra
On 23/03/2009, at 1:56 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Russell,
> you are not alone as the target of this remark...
>
> Many people consider 'creativity' (like "change", "quality" etc.) a
> POSITIVE concept. - WRONG. -
> Just consider the recent creative financial genius Maddoff, with his
> b$50 sc
On 26/03/2009, at 4:03 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
> Actually, Madoff was just skillful - not creative. Ponzi was
> creative.
>
> Brent
>
Touché
Kim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
On 20/03/2009, at 6:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2009, at 05:19, Kim Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> But who can say that creativity cannot be taught when no institution
>> sets out to do so?
>
>
> I ha
On 28/03/2009, at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Some hallucinogens go even further than this, and introduce an
>> element
>> of amnesia for semantic and episodic memories, such that users report
>> the experience of "forgetting that I had taken a drug, that I was
>> human,
>> or even w
http://www.debonosociety.com/
What's important? Thinking is perhaps the most important thing humans
do. By and large they are pretty slip-shod at it. The problems of
Global Warming and the Global Financial Crisis pale into
insignificance compared to the problem of the disastrous quality of
On 17/04/2009, at 11:09 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Kim,
>
> thank you for re-introduce me to DeBono. I heard about him in the
> late 90s at a list called "Creativity" (what I disliked, because it
> positied that Cr. can be developed and learned
It can - as I never tire of saying. Come o
Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct
theology? Materialistic atheism is not irrational, being on the side
of reason, but it may be illogical, given the advanced view of reality
we are adopting on this list that challenges the myth of a hard
material substratum
nces of God". Being so personal, you can only wait for
your own personal experience to turn up. What if it doesn't?
Best regards,
Kim Jones
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Every
On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> universe [by a person].
OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a
On 07/05/2009, at 3:43 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what
> consciousness is.
Good. Have you ever had the feeling/hunch/thought/intuition/
apprehension/revelation/vision (call it what you will) that you know a
"person" to whom
On 08/05/2009, at 2:30 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
> God is a person and/or that there is a God.
OK - "we" will stop it! I don't really think that, but if you are
anything like me Tom, you have gone through periods in
Fabulous post, Jason. Enthralling stuff.
Kim
On 08/05/2009, at 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> If we on this list believe that everything (or at least everything
> with a self consistent definition) exists, then we must also believe
> that all possible gods exist. Be they artificial intel
On 28/05/2009, at 12:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Also, I will from now on, abandon the term machine for the term
> number. Relatively to a fixed chosen universal "machine", like
> Robinson arithmetic, such an identification can be done precisely. I
> will come back on this to my explanation to
rtues of anything
as anachronistic and mythical as somebody's supposed "high IQ". I
could put a thinking test in front of him that would defeat him
totally, yet be easily done by a 7 year old.
Kim Jones
On 31/05/2009, at 9:16 AM, russell standish wrote:
>> Obvious
On 11/07/2009, at 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I am also a bit anxious about Kim, who is the one who suggested me the
> initial explanations, but who seems to have disappear right now.
OK - I'm back. Since May 27 to two days ago I have been without
Internet access.
I made the mistake
On 14/07/2009, at 6:40 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The intersection of the two sets S1 = {1, 2, 3} and S2 = {2, 3, 7,
> 8} will be written (S1 \inter S2), and is equal to the set of
> elements which belongs to both S1 and S2. We have
>
> (S1 \inter S2) = {2, 3}
>
> We can define (S1 \inter S2
Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what "RITSIAR" means? I
cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it.
Sorry to be dumb,
Kim
On 27/07/2009, at 12:52 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and
> machines. N
On 27/07/2009, at 11:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am real.
>
> Cheers
> Brian
>
> Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what "RITSIAR" means? I
>> cannot find
modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie
Foster in the film)
Introduction by Richard Dawkins
cheers,
Kim Jones
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscr
The Mandelbulb: first 'true' 3D image of famous fractal
enjoy
Kim Jones
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this
Dear John,
This is ancient history judging from the post date. Just the same - I
saw a post from you some time ago with the single word in the subject
line "unsubscribe". I'm not dreaming - I saw it. Did you lean on the
big, bright yellow unsubscribe button by mistake?
Kim J
thread I have contributed nothing to that I have ever
contributed nothing to
nevertheless
I think we need more on question 1
Questions 2 and 3 appear to have answers of sorts
Kim Jones
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed t
On 14/03/2007, at 5:59 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> nevertheless
>>
>> I think we need more on question 1
>>
>> Questions 2 and 3 appear to have answers of sorts
>>
>> Kim Jones
>
> What kind of statement would you regard as an answer to why
t the *environment* that forms part of the snapshot as
the actual datum to be recalled.
Is memory something you can wind in reverse, like Hermoine does with
her watch in Harry Potter?
Anyone like to comment on this effect?
Kim Jones
===
Could you provide some info on this, please? How can we be sure it
isn't a spoof? Which US Baptist college is this? Can't decipher the
logo...
cheers,
Kim Jones
On 09/08/2007, at 5:06 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Here's a school that's ahead of Bruno in taking
What is "lobian" apart from la machine, Bruno? Are you referring to
"angels" here?
Aren't angels machines too?
K
On 09/08/2007, at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Also, if we are machine (or just lobian), we can indeed contemplate
> the
> consistency of *little part* of math, but cert
on.
>
> John
>
> On 8/9/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 09-août-07, à 11:22, Kim Jones a écrit :
>
> >
> > What is "lobian" apart from la machine, Bruno? Are you referring to
> > "angels" here?
> >
> &g
h the core concepts of THIS discussion.
In his last post to us he admitted as much.
Go through the archives of this list and look at what we have been
talking about. Once you have read all of that, maybe get back to us
Kim Jones
On 07/03/2008, at 1:43 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
> By trolling
something like
that? By the way, thanks for showing that "artistic intelligence" may
actually represent a form of scientific understanding, a thought dear
to my heart.
Kim Jones
On 29/07/2008, at 7:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> aesthetics is the real basis of
> int
On 24/10/2008, at 1:56 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kim Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on
>> this list
>> and it could give birth to something relevant. Th
On 24/10/2008, at 2:43 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>> acting in a sense contrary to how you feel. Takes a bit of practice
>> but anybody can act.
>
> This is true, but this is mostly frontal lobe territory...suppressing
> dominant responses with an interest in long-term benefit. It's good
> that we
>
On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
> feelings=emotions.
Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
'emotions':
I have a ( ) my uranium shares might go up soon
I have a ( ) it might r
On 24/10/2008, at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>> There is radical brain-chemistry change of state under emotions
>>
>> They have a physical effect on the organism having them that can be
>> spotted easily by a 3rd party
>>
>> Feelings are mildly intellectual sensations of value that we have
On 24/10/2008, at 6:33 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> I believe emotions are very basic things. Just strong, overriding,
> biological responses. I'm sure animals have them too.
Without doubt
animals are all 'on the make' - without emotions you cannot have any
'leverage' over your kind
> How e
On 24/10/2008, at 9:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> I'm suggesting that emotions are tethered to survival need and
>> protection of values etc.
>>
>> There is radical brain-chemistry change of state under emotions
>>
>> They have a physical effect on the organism having them that can be
On 25/10/2008, at 8:10 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>> OK - I don't 'know' that except in the sense of having the feeling
>> that I read it somewhere - usually New Scientist...
>> I'm sure that I could dig up the appropriate reference for you but I
>> think you should maybe trust my 'feelings' on
On 24/10/2008, at 8:44 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> Wonder is more of a feeling though - don't need wonder as a survival
>> mechanism
>
> I can imagine wonder having survival value for highly evolved
> organisms like the homo sapiens. It is the driving force behind great
> scientists and engine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Theology (was in-between-times) Date: 5 August 2005 10:44:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.comOn 04/08/2005, at 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:Le 31-juil.-05, à 03:13, Kim Jones
401 - 500 of 543 matches
Mail list logo
