Hi Roger,
I am just trying for precision. ;-)
On 8/23/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah),
to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely
wideband.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result
of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at
all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see
what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of
have transformations that flow in opposite directions.
On 8/23/2012 10:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Pratt does not seem to understand that there is an ontological
firewall between extended (body)
and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can
wipe
Hi Roger,
What is this quote from? It is interesting! I don't quite agree with it,
as the centers are not all that a monad must include for its definition...
On 8/23/2012 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing
Hi Roger,
I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad.
On 8/23/2012 11:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying
things, just a rhetorical phrase.
All physical things in the world are substances
:
It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness.
Weak emergence is like your grains of sand.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence
Hi Richard,
OK! I'll read it.
On 8/23/2012 1:16 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am not sure what you mean
Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's from
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_leib.html
and was just the first link that came up in Google.
Just Google on
monad
and a whole set of other links will pop up.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say
, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence
Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent
property is irreducible to its individual constituents.
OK, but irreducibility
On 8/23/2012 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
hmmm.
Quanta and monads are singular entities.
QM has the dualism particle/wave
Monadology has extended/inextended.
These might be construed as similar.
But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective
unless
Dear Alberto,
I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am not
conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and yet am
conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the sense of
rejecting relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern progressives
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree
with such an idea: I use the scientific method, which means that you
cannot disagree with me without showing a precise flaw at some step in
the reasoning.
You seem to follow the
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
sequences of numbers, making the body problem into a problem of
arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal
machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above,
On 8/23/2012 2:18 PM, benjayk wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory
space.
This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it
just uses its own memory space.
What constitutes the memory space of the
On 8/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined
externally.
I
Dear Richard,
Your paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf is very
interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular automaton
theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d manifold would be a
single fixed structure that, while conceivably capable of running the
PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Richard,
Your paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf is very
interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular
automaton theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d
and algorithms thread here:
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/c92723e0ef1a480c/429e70be57d2940b?#429e70be57d2940b
Jesse
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Richard,
Your
On 8/23/2012 11:00 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 8/23/2012 8:07 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Thanks for the compliment.
I finally got someone with smarts
that does not admit constructable proofs. This
is a HUGE problem in mathematics and by extension philosophy.
On 8/24/2012 6:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
H. I guess I should have know this, but if there are unproveable
statements,
couldn't that also mean that the axioms
nothing?
It seems to me that Leibniz was working out the Everything vs.
Nothing problem of existence from a different point of view with the
monadology.
On 8/24/2012 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme
Dear Roger,
I agree with what you are saying regarding the communion
concept, but I am interested in some kind of explanation for it that is
not just some appeal to authority.
On 8/24/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, God communes with us (and the entire
On 8/24/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate
exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson
arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of
Robinson Arithmetic.
But you cannot conclude
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is retractable path independence: path independence only over
retractable paths.
I don't
this is a test of my email browser. Please ignore
--
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 unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On 8/25/2012 2:41 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B
Point, Set, Match: Craig Weinberg!
On 8/25/2012 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:50:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I did it for many reasons
And a cuckoo clock operates the way
On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context
and
ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does
On 8/27/2012 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/27/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Aug 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal
On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound
in arithmetic.
This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all
copies are identical and this by the principle
On 8/29/2012 2:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system
On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Brent,
Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase
generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated
meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors.
Seems
On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I agree.
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
Cs = subject + object
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
QED
Hi Roger,
It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as
On 8/29/2012 8:34 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Actually what you're saying makes me think of something new. Maybe the
assumed singularity of the subject comes only through objectivity.
Think of the dreamstate, or dementia, or infancy, where subjectivity
is most directly exposed. The
another self. We
could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created
clones. Although this probably will never happen.
Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might
occur. There is something important to this!
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
Hear Hear!
On 8/29/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of
the retired folk.
In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
random testing
you may as
On 8/29/2012 10:34 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Craig,
Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate)
because it excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ?
Richard
Maybe! One might argue that life in the cosmos is generating an
increasing number of possibilities for itself and thus
On 8/29/2012 10:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It
has memory because it is intelligent
On 8/29/2012 10:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/29/2012 5:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Brent,
Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase
generation by the UD might mean, we have just
On 8/29/2012 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:14:38 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Right! That is how naming occurs.
Nice!
I was thinking of this:
If we recorded every commercial transaction by name, we could produce
a fingerprint signature for
Dear Roger,
Wrong. Computation is involved in the act of seeing.
Identification is a computational act. Any transformation of information
(difference that makes a difference) is, by definition, a computation.
On 8/29/2012 11:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Awareness = I
On 8/29/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:34:22 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
Craig,
Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate)
because it excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ?
Richard
Yes, although it may not be the actual
On 8/29/2012 11:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:09:05 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Craig:
I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why
idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an
effect of phisical laws). I
Hi Terry,
I think so too. I wonder if this could be captured by assuming the
opposite of Cantor continuum hypothesis? Or by thinking of computations
as integers embedded in hyperreal numbers.
On 8/29/2012 12:04 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's
On 8/29/2012 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:23:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Craig,
What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we
are talking about is just that set of fact that is
incontrovertible among us.
I
On 8/29/2012 3:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Craig
But what you are saying here is true for each and every
individual observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a
figure/frame relation. We
On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to
imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could
come would
Hi Friends,
I found a paper that outlines the idea that I am pursuing using
lattice and spectrum theory.
http://www.guspepper.net/art-cuantica/Observables.pdf
I am trying for a more direct tops approach by gluing presheaves to
the members of a Stone space, but this is still very
On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing
but experience.
Hi Craig,
I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The
order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space.
Thought
On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I´m reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher
Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a
theory of everything which includes the mind:
http://www.ctmu.net/
Anyone had notice previously about it?. I
On 8/30/2012 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional
versus rational etc. The whole point is
On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Craig,
Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much
like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals
were unnecessary.
On 8/30/2012 6:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I´m reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher
Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a
theory of everything which includes the mind:
http
On 8/30/2012 7:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
Hi Craig,
Umm, ever hear
On 8/31/2012 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz's Idealism (LI) differs from dual-aspect monism (DAM)
in that while both have corresponding domains of brain and mind,
as I understand it, DAM is an overlay of brain and mind.
Hi Roger,
LI is commesurate with DAM, IMHO
On 8/31/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Craig,
They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical
implication of their arguments. We should pay teachers more and
useless businessmen less
On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could
endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but
I thought that we where
On 8/31/2012 9:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There no doubt are similarities, but IMHO dual-aspect is
conceptually headless. Guillotined. Unable to explain Cs and mind.
Or if I may, God, for that matter. Hence materialists are
mostlhy atheists.
The absolutely critical thing
Dear Roger,
I am most interested in a detailed discussion of the
1) preestablished harmony
2) reflections or images
3) Tree-like structure
4) whatever might be exterior to a monad.
On 9/2/2012 2:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
*Toward emulating life with a monadic computer*
**
In a previous
On 9/3/2012 8:26 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
On the contrare, science is a product of the left, more or less,
whereas anti-evolution is a product of the right, more or less.
Science is selfcorrecting and so the left is constantly re-examining
its conclusions whether in science or
On 9/3/2012 8:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi R AM
Many economists find that an incredible number of things fit
the Pareto distriution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
such that, to make up an example, 20% of the people
own 80% of the wealth.
In some cases, the effect might be
On 9/3/2012 9:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Natural numbers are monads because
1) the are inextended substances, which is redundant to say.
2) they have no parts.
That's a definition of a monad. Except to add that monads are alive,
except that numbers are not very alive. I imagine
On 9/3/2012 10:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize
that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy.
This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism.
The lights are on, but nobody's home.
Hi Roger,
You might
On 9/3/2012 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
1) The pre-established harmony is beyond the laws of physics.
For nothing is perfect in this contingent world. The preestablished
harmony was designed before the beginning of gthe world,
and since God is good, presumably gthe pre
On 9/3/2012 5:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels
That's way overstated. The
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I
don't
see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningful 3-p
point
of view where this isn't true. This
On 9/4/2012 10:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
IMHO I would put it that life begets life, no means required.
Just as at Christmas time in church we pass a flame
from one candle to another.
Creation was like an ignition of life like a flame,
like lighting a match.
Hi Roger
Hear Hear!
I recommend the movieHarrison Bergeron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmEOI5zwFMM as a demonstration of the
ill effects that follow attempts to generate equality in a population.
On 9/4/2012 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Anybody who believes that we are all born equal
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer.
It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's
nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I
On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every
one. Then
On 9/4/2012 8:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be
continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world
that includes our body and what we are
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the
life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I
will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step and
the stipulated assumptions of comp. I
On 9/4/2012 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Jason,
Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is
effectively simultaneous.
Perhaps
On 9/4/2012 10:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
entire
thought
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed,
assume that the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness
On 9/5/2012 12:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
The brain can process data as it is listening (like buffering a video
download) and likely predict the final word before it is done being
uttered. To prove the brain somehow overcomes this half second delay
in a convincing way, you would need to
On 9/5/2012 12:47 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Something about microelectronics and neurology though that blinds us
to the chasm between the map and the territory. This kind of example
with pencil and paper helps me see how really bizarre it is to expect
a conscious experience to arise out of
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it only makes sense that we are our whole life, not just the
brain cells or functions. The body is a public structural shadow of
the private qualitative experience, which is an irreducible (but not
incorruptible) gestalt.
Bingo!
--
Onward!
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All that matters is that it can exactly carry our the necessary
functions. Individual minds are just different versions of one
and the same mind! To steal an idea from Deutsch, Other histories
are just different universes are just
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why? If everything is a singular totality on one level, then
synchronization is the precondition of time. Time is nothing but
perspective-orchestrated de-synchronization.
No. Time is an order of sequentially givens. DO not assume per-orderings
because
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, I don't know, any kind of universe-as-machine cosmology seems no
better than a theological cosmology. What machine does the machine run
on? What meta-arithmetic truths make arithmetic truths true?
Maybe it is the act of us being aware of them
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's the right question to be asking! Errors are sentences that
are false in some code. Exactly how does this happen if one's
beliefs are predicated on Bp p(is true)?
Yeah, it seems to me like we should have to be spraying cybercide
On 9/5/2012 2:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist?
What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way
by some thing (itself if nothing
On 9/5/2012 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I
don't
see how it makes
On 9/5/2012 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
question.
Nor does Arithmetical Truth.
God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it
inconsistent.
Dear Bruno,
Might it be agreeable to you to stipulate the
On 9/5/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp
On 9/5/2012 1:40 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's.
Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall)
as occasions of experience.
Hi Roger,
A.N.Whitehead's idea is similar to a version of Craig's sense idea made
in a
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry of
the Universe. I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when I read
the following:
Empirical considerations cannot establish the existence of such point
events, but the geometrical tools discussed herein
On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
So why discuss them?
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry
On 9/5/2012 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry
of the Universe. I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when
I read the following:
Empirical
Dear Richard,
Would it be a heresy to consider that God could have partial but
not complete self-reference?
On 9/6/2012 7:24 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church believes that god has intention but not
intelligence in agreement with Arithemetical Truth and neo-Platonism
Dear Roger,
Could the mere possibility of being a number (without the
specificity of which one) be considered to be there from the beginning?
On 9/6/2012 7:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man,
then I think they
of what exists and its evolution and so forth, but it is just another
word that may not refer to anything that really exists.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Brian,
can be defined ... implies
801 - 900 of 1638 matches
Mail list logo
