On 9/24/2012 9:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
By self I mean conscious self. Computers
are not conscious because codes can describe,
but they can't perceive. Perception requires a
live viewer or self.
I had no racial intentions in mind when I spoke
of not having a subject, and I find it difficult
On 9/24/2012 10:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
A computer being not conscious ? All computer operations
(to my mind,probably not yours) are actual (in spacetime).
But consciousness is an inherent (mental, not in spacetime)
activity.
Cs = subject + object
A computer has no inherent realms, no
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
you are the only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering that
there are a HUGE number of observers of
On 9/24/2012 12:59 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise
On 9/24/2012 11:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip
On 9/24/2012 11:04 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
you
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I
On 9/24/2012 11:55 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Or it's Chris Fuch's instrumental Bayesianism which regards QM as just
a way of representing one's knowledge of systems.
If Chris can extract Bell's theorem from the Bayesian statistics, that
would be amazing! I consider QM to be a theory of observers, I
On 9/25/2012 12:05 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark
On 9/25/2012 12:25 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P
On 9/23/2012 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Sep 2012, at 22:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5 because it's saturday.
How could we have a world we many minds can, on rare
Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 22 Sep 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
With comp, all the exists comes from the ExP(x) use in
arithmetic, and their arithmetical epistemological version, like
[]Ex[]P(x), or []Ex[]P(x), etc.
Can not you see
On 9/22/2012 5:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word exists only when we are
referring to physical existence.
Dear Roger,
I think the exact opposite. We should NEVER use the word exists in
reference to what is merely the subject of human
On 9/22/2012 5:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
If we can define what we are talking about, most of our problems
will be solved.
That is why I believe we ought to use the Descartes-Leibniz definition
of physical existence as that which is in spacetime (is extended).
Thus the
Subject: Re: Mind and brain as apples and oranges
On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:48:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King and all
The problems imagined by materialists in invoking dualism
are just that - imaginary-- as long as mind is unextended
and brain is extended. And the so
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5 because it's saturday.
How could we have a world we many minds can, on rare occasions, come to
complete agreement if that where the case? Perhaps it is true that 2+2=4
On 9/22/2012 3:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen and Bruno:
/*(BRUNO: Hmm... Then numbers lives, but with comp, only universal or
Lobian numbers can be said reasonably enough to be living.
You might go to far. Even in Plato, the No? content (all the ideas) is
richer that its living part. I
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons
On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations
are already
On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the numbers build an arithmetic body
The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body.
and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they
can implement the UD.
No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if
made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 21:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
Dear Bruno,
Did you mean both the 3p-self and the non-nameable 1p-self? How
does the 1p-self name itself?
It cannot. In logic name is for definite description. The 3-self can
name itself
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net
Any one up to explaining this:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
On 9/20/2012 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:54, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I would say that one necessary ability for
life is for an organism to be able to separate itself off
from its environment and thus to be able to make its
own decisions without outside
On 9/20/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I would say that one necessary ability for
life is for an organism to be able to separate itself off
from its environment and thus to be able to make its
own decisions without outside interference. In
other words, to be autonomous.
On 9/20/2012 7:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Collective consciousness
Interesting. What links the bees together such that a collective
is possible?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Any one up to explaining this:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk
On 9/20/2012 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg ,
Because consciousness at the most is not physical
and at the least it is a verb rather than a noun,
that fellow below, in his search for consciousness,
is like the early spanish explorers searching
for the lost seven cities of gold.
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified,
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
On 9/20/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:55:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:14:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27,
On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Any one up to explaining this:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html
What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer
from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the
On 9/20/2012 12:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone
may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines
On 9/20/2012 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Consciousness requires an autonomous self.
Human consciousness requires an autonomous human self, but it is not
necessarily true that consciousness
On 9/20/2012 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is
On 9/20/2012 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:55:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
You can see from all of the flack I get here
that being a believer, since you believe in something
seemingly to be nonsense (especially to the
On 9/20/2012 9:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:23:08 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
snip
Hi Craig,
You need to show how we can get some kind of closure in the
map for this to work...
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.
Craig
To understand a thing is to control a thing.
--
Onward!
Stephen
On 9/20/2012 9:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Any one up to explaining this:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html
What's to explain? The bees found
On 9/20/2012 10:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:49:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Consciousness
On 9/20/2012 11:27 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 8:17 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 9:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Any one up to explaining this:
http
On 9/19/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2012, at 18:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Yes. This was known by people like Fatou and Julia,
On 9/19/2012 2:39 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Your remarks raise an interesting question: Could it be that both
the object and the means to generate (or perceive) it are of equal
importance ontologically?
Yes. It comes from the embedding of the subject in the objects, that
any
On 9/19/2012 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:14:17 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
No, the paper does *not* assume that there is a set of
functions that
if
On 9/18/2012 12:25 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Terren,
Comp is false is too strong. He is explaining how comp is
incomplete. The movie graph argument is flawed.
I'm not sure what that means, that comp
On 9/18/2012 6:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
IMHO conscousness is not really anything in itself,
it is what the brain makes of its contents that the self
perceives. The self is intelligence, which is
able to focus all pertinent brain activity to a unified point.
Roger Clough,
On 9/18/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Thinking about mereologyand Leibniz...
Since a monad is a whole, it can't have parts, so
you can't break it into parts. That's in fact the definition
of a monad, a whole without parts. So while some, including
Leibniz, speak
On 9/18/2012 9:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The supreme monad (God) does everything
(God causes all to happen) while the monads,
being entirely passive, can do nothing except
display the changes that God made for them
as what is called their individual perceptions,
meaning
On 9/18/2012 12:44 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think most reactors using Hastelloy plumbing (one of several
nickel alloys). The containment vessels are steel and concrete.
They differ
On 9/18/2012 5:17 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Ha ha: so not consciousness is the 'thing', but 'intelligence'? or is
this one also a function (of the brain towards the self?) who is the
self? how does the brain
*_DO _**_something_ *
(as a homunculus?) on its own? Any suggestions?
John M
Hi John,
On 9/17/2012 9:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Forgive me if I bring up Leibniz again, but to my mind he gives
the most thorough descriptions as to how the world works.
And so logical that you can figure out many things
on your own.
Dear Roger,
I too have found Leibniz
On 9/17/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads are not rigidly separated.
So change in one mind is reflected in all,
the extent being how capable the others are of reading
the content and their similarity to the subject.
Dear Roger,
Your defiction is what we get if we
On 9/17/2012 8:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Descartes believed in only TWO
kinds of substance: material body, which is defined by extension,
and mental substance, which is defined by thought, which, in this context, is more
On 9/17/2012 8:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The two words are commonly confused.
Faith is wordless trust, personal and interior. It is in the heart.
Beliefs are public expressions of that faith and its object, and a
whole lot more, and are thus in words. So it is in the head
On 9/17/2012 8:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The physical is, and only is, what you can measure.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
Yes
at it from the
inside and reporting to us his observations.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/16/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Background: After refusing to serve Bruno's brother in law with the
simulated brain at my restaurant, I decide to make
On 9/17/2012 5:41 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial
On 9/16/2012 8:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Now I see your problem with Chalmers.
It seems to be too sweeping a remark,
but Leibniz would agree. because
God, who is the supreme monad, causes all
to happen. Mind is the ruling power.
As I say below,
If there's no God, we'd have
On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Not sure I understand your objection, but
faith, being subjective (hence personal)
is at least to first order principally in one individual.
At the same time, however, since
Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some
spillover from other
On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Not sure I understand your objection, but
faith, being subjective (hence personal)
is at least to first order principally in one individual.
Dear Roger,
There is more to say!
At the same time, however, since
Mind is nonlocal
On 9/16/2012 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The other minds problem (How do I know that there are other minds ?)
is indeed an impossible to crack nut if you are a solipsist. So
solipsim is perhaps the only philiosophy impossible to
disprove. Or prove, I think.
Leibniz
On 9/16/2012 8:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:21:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
What you think third party observable behavior means is the set
of all
On 9/16/2012 8:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
My take on the meaning of knowledge of things unseen
is knowledge of what is invisible at the moment.
Hi Roger,
I agree with this definition. It is equivalent to mine. What we
must understand is that at the moment
On 9/16/2012 8:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Mereology seems to be something like Spinoza's metaphysics,
that there is just one stuff in the universe and that stuff is God.
So there is just one material.
Hi Roger,
Yes. Each of these philosophers focused on different
On 9/16/2012 8:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THORIUM REACTORS BUT
THERE ARE MANY DOUBTERS (CERTAINLY GREENIES AMONG THEM)
THAT THEY WOULD WORK.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
9/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's
On 9/16/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Background: After refusing to serve Bruno's brother in law with the
simulated brain at my restaurant, I decide to make peace by inviting
myself to go along with Brother in law B1ll to his favorite restaurant.
It's the best in the city!, says B1ll.
On 9/16/2012 12:34 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Craig,
You may want to look at
Galen Strawson, Selves: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics
He proves that selves exist. Interestingly enough he does it based on
the materialist framework.
p. 11 “For the moment, though, the brief is to show that
On 9/16/2012 12:35 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Hi Stephan,
I would like to quibble about your statement:
For God, all things are given but once and there is no need to
compute the relations .
in terms of the OMEGA Point (OP).
Hi Richard,
A good friend of mine (who I was just talking to a
On 9/16/2012 12:43 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In fact it [CO2] has been less than half the current level
during the last 600 thousand years
There have been at least 4 times in the last 600
On 9/16/2012 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.09.2012 18:29 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/16/2012 8:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THORIUM
REACTORS BUT THERE ARE MANY DOUBTERS (CERTAINLY GREENIES AMONG
THEM) THAT THEY WOULD WORK
On 9/16/2012 12:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:13:57 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/16/2012 8:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:21:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
Moreover, this
set has subsets, and
On 9/16/2012 2:42 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.09.2012 19:03 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:34:47 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
Craig,
You may want to look at
Galen Strawson, Selves: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics
He proves that selves
On 9/16/2012 3:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why does a physical system have to be non-invertible? My
understanding is that current physical laws imply that systems are
invertible.
Hi Jason,
Say hello to the problem of time.
--
Onward!
Stephen
On 9/16/2012 3:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Where is our universe located? What could its location be
relative to?
That question presupposes that there is a large universe that
this one is embedded into and that it is possible to define both
coordinate maps
On 9/16/2012 3:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes, but note that even in the case of a purely abstract
mathematical universe, like a Hilbert space, we use a coordinate
system and sets of maps to relate the relations of where things
are in the space of the universe.
Sure, but my
On 9/16/2012 3:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Sep 2012, at 13:36, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
All love, all truth, all beauty necessarily comes from God
(Platonia's All).
So if you can feel any of those, there's your experience.
Yes.
But with comp there is a sense to say that
On 9/16/2012 3:43 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
It seems to me that numbers are based on our ability to judge relative
magnitudes:
Which is bigger, which is closer, which is heavier, etc.
Many animals have this ability - called numeracy. Humans differ only
in the degree to which it is developed, and
On 9/16/2012 6:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/16/2012 3:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why does a physical system have to be non-invertible? My
understanding is that current physical laws imply that systems
On 9/16/2012 6:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/16/2012 3:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why does a physical system have to be non-invertible? My
understanding is that current physical laws imply that systems
On 9/14/2012 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2012, at 15:41, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2012 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brian,
On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:04, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Bruno,
You use B as a predicate symbol for belief I think.
I use for the modal unspecified
On 9/15/2012 4:11 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 02:55:17AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Could you elaborate on what your definition of a digital
machine is?
Anything Turing emulable.
Dear Bruno,
OK. But you do understand that this assumes
On 9/15/2012 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that all or much of the brain calculations are done
aurally, phonetically. That has to be since we have to
be able to understand and create vocal language.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
9/15
On 9/15/2012 8:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I seem to have-- whoops-- totally misread him. Logical dyslexia ?
Hi Roger,
Good catch! Yeah, my dyslexia distorts things in a weird telephone
game way...
His first sentence is correct:
Conscious experience
On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Faith is merely trust. I could have faith in a doorknob.
But I wouldn't try faith in Satan.
Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you
up to authority, to submission, and submission
is the meat and potatoes
, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
My stance there is absolutely anti-materialist.
Where do you see a materialistic statement ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function
On 9/15/2012 9:12 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
And then there is Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles, identity
there meaning that you only need one of them, throw the rest away.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's
: victims of faith
On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for
the purpose of a
political agenda.
It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry.
The way that the sensors are distributed
On 9/15/2012 9:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man),
there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right,
where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the
market
is
On 9/15/2012 8:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The
basic exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by
those interests which control and manipulate the market. Look at how
Microsoft created their monopoly. It made
On 9/16/2012 12:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
in the present case there is no mystery about where the CO2
comes from and whether it's a natural cycle - it's us.
Probably, but I'm not terribly concerned about
On 9/15/2012 11:16 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That should have happened from the get go (thorium reactors),
except that a bomb cannot be made from thorium.
Hi Richard,
I noticed that as well. It seems that the more uses something has
the more likely it is to happen.
On Sat, Sep 15,
On 9/14/2012 4:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There are different kinds of beliefs. The believer that has no strong
evidences, know that he believe. He know that he believe.
The second kind of believer does not know that he believe, because he
live in a environment where the evidences are
On 9/14/2012 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb,
ROGER: Hi meekerdb
First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so
it only works with half a brain.
MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are
On 9/14/2012 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brian,
On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:04, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Bruno,
You use B as a predicate symbol for belief I think.
I use for the modal unspecified box, in some context (in place of the
more common []).
Then I use it mainly for the box
On 9/14/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Sep 2012, at 20:08, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/13/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi benjayk,
This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He
does not see several
On 9/14/2012 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2012, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
makes a bridge between two fields,
What two fields?
The study of the notion of truth,
On 9/14/2012 6:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
Generating sets gets you nowhere unless you can also generate intelligence.
Hi Roger,
I agree. Defining differences without the means to comprehend those
differences is purely mechanical and not-intelligent.
Roger Clough,
801 - 900 of 1638 matches
Mail list logo
