Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 1/24/2013 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg > wrote: > evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-in

Re: the curse of materialism

On 1/23/2013 6:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, Numbers do have an independent existence, that being nonphysical existence. Hi Roger, I agree but only because I see existence as mere a priori necessary possibility; not contingent upon perception at all... -- Onward! Stephen -- Yo

Re: Is there an aether ?

wledge all seems tied together... But I would add that just be cause our language paints a particular picture in our minds, there need not be anything like such 'outside of us'. How fast we forget the lesson we can can find in Descartes /Meditations/... On 1/23/2013 5:18 AM, R

Re: Robot reading vs human reading

On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism,

Re: the curse of materialism

On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer.

Re: Is there an aether ?

On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/21/2013 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear

Re: the curse of materialism

On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. That's something evolution explains. Brent Hi

Re: the curse of materialism

On 1/21/2013 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I mean if we wanted to get technical I would split the physics of counting into the private motive experience quantitative reasoning from the sensory experiences of figures or forms upon which we project our representations, but yeah numbers need a su

Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

On 1/21/2013 9:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. Dear Roger, Why are you hung up on vision? I think that Craig is including all possible senses. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you ar

Re: the curse of materialism

On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you procee

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I am discussing ontology, there is no such a process as Turing or 'realities'

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/18/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: I see no references to how, except to note that exponential growth can't continue indefinitely and projected populations of 9 billion are probably impossible and absent some other restraint will result in a lot of people starving. The recommendation seems

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/18/2013 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Coming back to hemp should be the good idea. Oil and wood have replaced Hemp (for textile, fuel, paper and medication) just from lies and greed. The

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I am discussing ontology, there is no such a process as Turing or 'realities' or objects yet at such a level. All is abstracted away by the consideration of cancellation of

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/18/2013 8:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Everything I've said here can be verified by gardening or taking care of a couple of plants, animals, human beings for extended periods of time. Hi, I am not OK with the premise of this sentence or the direction. I want to know, in yo

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/18/2013 12:48 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> wrote: You have to prove that the CO2 is the main ingredi

Re: Algorithmic Thermodynamics

On 1/17/2013 11:34 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:25:20PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 4:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote: From just the abstract alone, I can't see how this differs from the Solomonff universal prior? Hi Russell, OK, is that a

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/17/2013 7:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> wrote: You have to prove that the CO2 is the main ingredient of global warming. Not me. Ok. So Greenhouse effect is "alarmist fantasy" to you. This

Re: Algorithmic Thermodynamics

On 1/17/2013 7:10 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I particularly liked this statement by Baez which relates to Feynman renomalization for QED and Crammer's Transactioanal Analysis: "Manin and Marcolli [20] derived similar results in a broader context and studied phase transitions in those systems. Ma

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

to open people's eyes. Having children did it for me. 2013/1/17 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> Hi Stephen, On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 1/17/2013 1:54 PM, Alb

Re: Algorithmic Thermodynamics

On 1/17/2013 9:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 4:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote: From just the abstract alone, I can't see how this differs from the Solomonff universal prior? Hi Russell, OK, is that a good thing? It seems to me that it is. Are you saying that the conte

Re: Algorithmic Thermodynamics

, Jan 16, 2013 at 07:29:33PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno and Friends, The paper that I have been waiting a long time for. ;-) http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2067 Algorithmic Thermodynamics John C. Baez <http://arxiv.org/find/math-ph,math/1/au:+Baez_J/0/1/0/all/0/1>,Mike

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/17/2013 1:54 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The idea of the end of resources comes from Malthus, but it can be traced much back in time, to some misconceptions of what is a resource from our evolutionary past. It is though naturally that a resource is something produced by the heart, which i

Re: Can there be multiple numbers ?

On 1/17/2013 11:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) Sorry, I incorrectly abbreviated, as usual, by referring to the Supreme Monad as God. The correct version is that God observes and handles the world of monads from behind or beyond the Supreme Monad. Somehow this may

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/17/2013 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Coming back to hemp should be the good idea. Oil and wood have replaced Hemp (for textile, fuel, paper and medication) just from lies and greed. The possible global warming might just be another consequences on the lies on cannabis, drugs etc. Hemp wa

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/17/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2013, at 23:45, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/16/2013 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Specific properties, at least down here, are needed if you accept Leibniz' dictum

Algorithmic Thermodynamics

Dear Bruno and Friends, The paper that I have been waiting a long time for. ;-) http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2067 Algorithmic Thermodynamics John C. Baez ,Mike Stay

Re: the curse of materialism

On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind of underlying conputation) Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of the colored

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/16/2013 1:52 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2013 1:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Now the same PR firms are hired by the oil and coal industry to obfuscate the problem of global warming. And meanwhile we disregard other options out of ideology, namely geo-engineering. They are dis

Re: quanta as a special type of monad

On 1/16/2013 12:42 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona I'll leave QM up to the physicists. As for myself, I'm trying to understand the status of being of quanta. Quanta are particles like the electron or photon. Dear Richard,

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/16/2013 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2013, at 00:11, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/15/2013 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:14, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/13/2013 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2013 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. My point is that

Re: Can there be multiple numbers ?

On 1/16/2013 11:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Stephen, Bruno endorsed at least part of my viewpoint below on whether there can be multiple identities. I allowed multiple identities (such as numbers) to exist in Platonia as long as they had different contexts. Dear Roger, Please see the post

Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a slide show. Hi Roger, What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' and their rate of transition? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are s

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/16/2013 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Specific properties, at least down here, are needed if you accept Leibniz' dictum that identical entities cannot exist in this contingent world, for they would have the same identity. I

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/15/2013 9:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 'that there is something fundamental that has particular properties is unscientific dogma'. Then everything is unscientific. because no human knowledge can be expressed without unproven premises at the bottom. Dogmas are not axioms neither prem

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/15/2013 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:14, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/13/2013 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2013 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. My point is that if we assume computationalism it is necessarily so, and constructively so, so making that

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/13/2013 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2013 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. My point is that if we assume computationalism it is necessarily so, and constructively so, so making that hypothesis testable. We have the logical entaiment: Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> s

Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter

On 1/13/2013 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:48, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Space and time may be a perception of the mind in the Kantian sense. I don´t find that space must be independent of the mind. space and time may be the way we perceive a space-time manifold which i

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 1/13/2013 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence and omniscience. Since Thomas, christian theologians knows that it is inconsistent. Dear Bruno, I have yet to find a modern Christian apologists that is troubled by this. Mos

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 1/13/2013 3:13 AM, meekerdb wrote: Nearly all scientists would agree that the material identity is not important to continuity of consciousness. Therefore any time the appropriate instantiation arises, consciousness can continue. In an infinitely large and varied reality (Platonism, QM, inf

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/13/2013 2:48 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/12/2013 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/12/2013 7:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: ??? Who asked you to? I guess you're unaware that hydroelectric generators depend on solar energy? And that the energy in coal and oil came from the Sun. And that

Re: The unpredictability of solar energy

On 1/12/2013 7:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: ??? Who asked you to? I guess you're unaware that hydroelectric generators depend on solar energy? And that the energy in coal and oil came from the Sun. And that it's not an either-or choice. And that the Sun shines all the time, just not on your spot?

Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.

On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word "must" implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a govern

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/6/2013 3:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics. Ah. OK. I would like to see an explanation of this claim if I had the time for such minutia. -- Onward! Stephen

Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.

On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word "must" implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said p

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/6/2013 3:14 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting. Brent Hi Brent, I thi

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting. Brent Hi Brent, I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt statements as evidence. Any person that is marx

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

On 1/6/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not extended in space Those objects you mention are extended in space. Like numbers, programs and other d

Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so.

ption to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.? So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4

Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy. So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. Hi! Excellent post! 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> On 1

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/5/2013 9:03 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a >solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's >idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects >of one and the same neutral oneness o

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 6:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each

Re: A dialog on monads, the PEH, and possible alternatives

On 1/5/2013 7:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ROGER: He had done away with two-substance cartesian dualism by considering both mind and body from a mental or logical aspect. STEVE: Yes, but at a price. I am, you could say, trying to make the price "reasonable"

Re: On morphic telepathy

On 1/4/2013 10:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: STEPHEN: Is it necessary that monads are a "substance"? Could we think of them as pure process the product of which is the content of experience of the monad? Is this formulation antithetical to the definition that Leibniz gives monads? ROGER: Keep in mi

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Richard, > > I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any >substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other >representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. Seehttp://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of

Re: On morphic telepathy

On 1/4/2013 1:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: On morphic telepathy Note that Leibniz for good reasons (similar to Kant) did not consider time and space to be substances, so the monads all exist as a dust of points in an inextended domain (to use Descartes' concepts) which is by definition outside of

Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/4/2013 3:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don

Re: "The best of all possible Worlds."

On 1/4/2013 3:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2013 11:58 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerb, Heaven is not part of contingent creation, so your statement that there is no heaven is illogical or irrelevant. It was an inference from your statement, "This is because things can't be good everywher

Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/4/2013 2:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The only miracle that the holy spirit can work with is life, for it, like God, is life, or represents life. We do not disagree. ;-) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially nea

Re: Fwd: [FOM] Preprint: "Topological Galois Theory"

On 1/3/2013 8:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2013 5:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno, You might be interested in this! How about giving us a 500 word summary including an example of it's application. Hi Brent, I guess that you can't be bothered to read it for yo

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

Hi, So how ever many years ago you there confident that CERN would discover the Higgs? And this post proves? Pfft, do better, John. On 1/3/2013 11:29 PM, John Clark wrote: I have been a member of the Extropian List for many years and at the beginning of the year it is my habit to sen

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/3/2013 7:33 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect their histories with each others using a substance based model Stephan, Could you elaborate? Richard Hi Richard, I

Fwd: [FOM] Preprint: "Topological Galois Theory"

Hi Bruno, You might be interested in this! Original Message Subject:[FOM] Preprint: "Topological Galois Theory" Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:08:04 +0100 From: Olivia Caramello Reply-To: Foundations of Mathematics To: Foundations of Mathematics Dear

Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/3/2013 1:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:44:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer (it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to cure him through killing the cancer). While

Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations

On 1/3/2013 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It would still be amazing that "nature" use quantum correcting machinery at some fundamental level. That might be explainable with comp. The measure on the computational histories can be made higher if there are fundamental instructions for hunting the

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/3/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard Hi, May I attempt an answer? Monads are not entities that are localized in a place, they are entire fields of experience. Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and r

Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---> habit computer

On 1/3/2013 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer, or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to incline random motions to more regular ones wh

Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough > wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a p

Deutsch on TIQM

Hi, I found an interesting passage in http://www.labyrinthina.com/multiverse.htm "Another disguised many worlds theory, says Deutsch, is John Cramer's "transactional" interpretation in which information passes backwards and forwards through time. When you measure the position of an atom,

Re: "The best of all possible Worlds."

On 1/3/2013 9:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I suppose that you're referring to the cpre-established perfect harmony, which makes it seem as if everything we do is determined (by God). IMHO that only means that God knows what we will do, not make the decision for us.

Re: "The best of all possible Worlds."

On 1/3/2013 9:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) I dobn't know what you mean by subjective. Things happen. Crap happens. 2). You seem to have some incorrect ideas about Leibniz. Leibniz in no way pretended that he created a perfect system. The world is far from perfect. All L

Re: "The best of all possible Worlds."

On 1/2/2013 8:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I forgot add that that's why Leibniz called this "The best of all possible Worlds." Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy As to tornadoes, there are various views, usually part of "Theodicies". Here's the view I prefer, that of my

Re: A Systems Theory Approach to the Mind/Body Problem (ver. 1)

On 12/30/2012 3:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:41:33 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A Systems Theory Approach to the Mind/Body Problem (ver. 1) The Black Box theory of Mind as given below suggests that the mind/body problem may be expressed analogously

Re: Ten top-of-my-head arguments against multiverses

On 12/29/2012 2:51 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Why not take the categories of all categories (besides that Lawyere tried that without to much success, except rediscovering Grothendieck topoi). I'm more interested in the smallest mathematical object in which all mathematical struc

Re: that the only way to fully understand something is to construct it.

On 12/29/2012 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There was also a wise italian philosopher centuries ago who had a major premiss, namely, that the only way to fully understand something is to construct it. OK. That is

Re: that the only way to fully understand something is to construct it.

On 12/29/2012 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There was also a wise italian philosopher centuries ago who had a major premiss, namely, that the only way to fully understand something is to construct it. Dear Roger, Yes, we must construct it for ourselves to fully

Re: Show me, don't tell me

On 12/29/2012 10:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I'm trying to recall (but can't) a particular author who often writes what appears to be a text, but it's really only an introduction. He never gets to the point he seemed to be headed toward. Others seem to have gone to the same comp

Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

On 12/29/2012 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Can you suggest a

Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove the solipsism puzzle ? Everybody solves it by the

Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove the solipsism puzzle ? Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in which other people are

Re: On the truth of comp -->Fw: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth vs3p = truth by calculation

On 12/28/2012 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Roger, On 28 Dec 2012, at 13:53, Roger Clough wrote: Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about 3p. But according to Leibniz, 1p is always in God's eye, but our personal pov is never undistorted or perfectly clear, and operates down here, wh

After the Singularity

Comments? Ben Goertzel interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYlKrHzknBE&feature=youtu.be -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsu

Re: Flies and ultimate reality

On 12/24/2012 7:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 3:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Roger, Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is small and the number

Re: Flies and ultimate reality

On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Roger, Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in

Re: Flies and ultimate reality

On 12/24/2012 11:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King IMHO Only the Supreme Monad (the One, God), and perhaps flies to some extent can clearly see "ultimate" reality, which means from all perspectives at once. How do flies unify their vision ? Dear Roger, Flies can u

Re: Strings are not in space-time, they are on space-time

On 12/23/2012 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: On 10/26/2012 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, in defense of Craig, or of the devil, this has not been proved. The problem occurs, or at least is "easy" to prove only when we make the digital assumption

Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ?

On 12/22/2012 7:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: We defeat Dennett by showing that the regress cannot occur when there are physical resources required by the computations for each level of the recursion. We can cutoff recursions in our algorithms with code: if count of loops is 10, st

Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ?

On 12/22/2012 7:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Stephen, On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 12/20/2012 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done,

Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.

On 12/20/2012 1:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi A simpler way to make my point is the axiom that no information can be stand alone, it must have context to give it meaning. But that context can not be stored alone, it in turn must have context. And so forth. Thus one bit of information cannot simpl

Re: promoting REASON

On 12/20/2012 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: If the occupiers simply suffer from anomie, why do they go to the trouble of camping out on the street ? It's uncomfortable and boring. Dear Roger, They are post-modernFlagellants , they believe that thei

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

On 12/20/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory

Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ?

On 12/20/2012 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constru

Re: The pro-life paradox

On 12/20/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2012, at 17:01, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life? Some pro-life doctor are against euth

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >