On 7/13/2012 4:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/7/14 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants
On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this
respect? If yes, how?
If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates responsibility, the answer
is no.
Brent
Hi Brent,
OK, so does the converse hold?
On 7/13/2012 9:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this
respect? If yes, how?
If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates
On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, the reverse is the case. The belongs to an infinity of computations making you
singling out some stable patterns requires the prior existence of the you to select
it. The observer (you here) effectively is the measure via a self-selection
On 7/14/2012 7:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, the reverse is the case. The belongs to an infinity of computations making
you singling out some stable patterns requires the prior existence of the you
On 7/14/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
And I need to add that not only is there a persistent you, there is every possible
version of that persistent you. If there is Identity via fixed point, then there is a
you' involved in some capacity.
I wrote there was no unique, persistent
On 7/15/2012 9:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Interesting. So the unitary evolution of the SWF or state vector is not continuous
over its spectrum or what ever it is called ... the cover or span of the basis?
It's continuous, but decoherence picks out different subspaces which are almost
On 7/17/2012 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jul 2012, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely
bsolutely no
reason for doing so, it is
On 7/18/2012 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Not for the atheists nearby. They vindicate that the believe that there is no God.
You need to distinguish what you mean by God. When written capitalized as a proper noun
it refers to a person/being who created the world and wants to be obeyed and
On 7/18/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let me be the proposition that Matter
(primitive matter) exists.
Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they
verify, with B for believes: B~g and Bm.
Science is
On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well ... you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of
us have
given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it, and you do this
On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian
civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in objective
evolutionary terms.
You mean the one that squelched Greek science (which had to be preserved by the Persians)
On 7/18/2012 12:21 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian
civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in
objective evolutionary
On 7/19/2012 1:43 AM, R AM wrote:
free markets produce the types of social systems that best enable
people to interact in a way that puts them on the oxytocin-empathy?
Really I thought it was each one on its own.
I think that's the interesting point: those two are not contrary.
Brent
On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent
and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker case) on the capacity of
having objective properties that could be studied by
On 7/20/2012 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/20/2012 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent
and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker
On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit :
This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders.
Brent
Original Message
Unto Others
BY MICHAEL SHERMER
It is the oldest and most
On 7/21/2012 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-juil.-12, à 18:00, meekerdb a écrit :
On 7/19/2012 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit :
Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are
doubly
On 7/21/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-juil.-12, à 22:30, John Clark a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what
they preach to their congregation on
On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. And it is here that conventional physics has a problem, for to relate observations
with perceptions they rely on the physical supervenience thesis, which does no more work
when comp is assumed.
It is only a problem in that the explanation is
On 7/21/2012 7:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/21/2012 3:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit :
This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders.
Brent
Original Message
On 7/22/2012 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their
excommunication and shout from the rooftops Good riddance to
On 7/22/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be
impractical
to poll them.
Well, if you don't meet them the problem will not occur.
No, modern society is so interwoven that the problem does occur. My daughter is
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:52:18AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is great news for Bruno! ;-)
I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved.
On 7/23/2012 4:42 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
arxiv:1207.4520
is there any meaning to this?
Ronald
Undecidable means that neither the proposition or its negation is provable from the
axioms. Presumably the corresponding physical fact is decided, and knowable by some
measurement. So it
On 7/28/2012 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
It is relatively random in the first person perspective, like the first
person
indeterminacy,
So all you're saying is that in this thing you like to call first person indeterminacy
the outcome of the simple multiplication problem 74* 836 is
On 7/30/2012 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The Boltzman brains , according with what i have read, are completely different beasts.
Boltzman pressuposes, that , since no random arrangement of matter is statistically
impossible, and Boltzman demonstrated it in certain conditions (ergodic
On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 28-juil.-12, à 18:46, John Clark a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people.
That is not true, my goal has two parts:
1) Figuring out what you mean
On 7/30/2012 10:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
The Free prefix is just an emphasis, and I don't take it too much seriously.
You say that but I don't believe it and I don't think even you really believe it,
otherwise you'd just say will means you want to do some things and don't want to do
On 7/30/2012 4:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free-will is an informal term use in many informal setting.
religious people defined it often by the ability to choose
consciously between doing
On 7/31/2012 8:36 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/30/2012 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The Boltzman brains , according with what i have read, are completely different
beasts. Boltzman pressuposes
On 7/31/2012 9:18 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you understand 'will'.
Yes, I want to do some things and don't want to do other things.
Do you also understand 'coercion'?
Yes, sometimes
On 7/31/2012 10:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The problem is to explain also why the entropy of the early universe was so low. If you
just accept that this is the case and also don't bother about the very distant future,
there is no problem. But if you assume that time goes on from the
On 7/31/2012 11:10 AM, R AM wrote:
On 7/30/2012 7:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
Conversely, with incomplete information, a rational being will make a
wrong
On 8/1/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes - and rationality often does not help much. In such situations, it
is often better to make a fast decision than a good one. Only
irrational agents can make fast decisions.
Almost all real decisions (even in chess) are time constrained. How can
On 8/2/2012 12:18 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Ronald,
I have a severe problem with this entire thread!
What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum,
mass, etc., of this universe?
They are conserved quantities, so if they are zero now it
On 8/2/2012 3:38 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:24:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Flipping a coin is never rational, although it may well be the best thing
to do.
I don't know what to make of
On 8/2/2012 3:55 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:17:00AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
From the responses I've received on this list, I don't think people
are using the term rational in the same way it is used in
economics. Flipping a coin is never rational, although it may
On 8/2/2012 4:43 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
We think thar our self is in the head because in this way we control better ourselves
and we can react to inmediate dangers better.( That is why fighter pilots, that need
heavy feedback and agile movements fly with their machines, while the spy and
On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The study of something that does not
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't think we can
live more than one second without some belief in some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and material bodies and
people (including
On 8/6/2012 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least, nameable. A person has
always has a name.
Why?
Otherwise he is identifiable only by description and then there is no uncertainty about
Bruno-in-Helsinki becoming Bruno-in-Washington or
On 8/6/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, Christians and I do have one thing in common, we both think that it might be good
if words mean something.
Only an obtuse Christian can believe that only the christian God gives the right meaning
of the word God.
In the English speaking world
On 8/6/2012 1:29 AM, rclough wrote:
Perhaps I am wrong, but I have a problem with the concept of artificial intelligence and
hence artificial life-- at least according to my
understanding of what intelligence is.
As I see it, intelligence is the ability to make choices completely on one's own.
This may be of interest.
Original Message
http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/08/07/1257256/a-new-glider-found-for-conways-game-of-life
-
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 8/8/2012 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Aug 2012, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, I find that normal. Atheism needs a precise notion of God to make, but all serious
theologian and mystics tend to
On 8/8/2012 10:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't
think we
On 8/8/2012 2:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So, according to you, we're always wrong to deny the existence of anything
because
to do so brings it into existence. We can't even have a clear conception
of it
without affirming its existence. I suppose that will find
On 8/9/2012 12:06 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
IIUC, the delays in question are between when the brain plans
(possibly decides) (the action potential) to do a course of action,
and when the mind becomes consciously aware of the decision.
Why would a several second delay between these two events
On 8/9/2012 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
a omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. It follows logically,
and using a convention of the English language that putting a a before a word can
negate it, a atheist is someone who does not believe in that notion.
It means
Surprisingly, Bruno might be invited to teach at Bob Jones University, :-)
http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
Brent
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk
--- Kronecker
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 8/10/2012 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt
by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in
parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the
total.
On 8/10/2012 7:23 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The modern positivist conception of free will has no
scientific meaning. But all modern rephasings of old philosophy are
degraded.
Or appear so because they make clear the deficiencies of the old philosophy.
Positivist philosophy pass everithing
On 8/10/2012 5:24 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Rationality isn't a very useful function. I only use it when I get in trouble.
I don't need it to drive my car or do practically anything.
Ben Franklin found rationality very useful.
I don't have more than a scanty definition of my
On 8/10/2012 5:53 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
But Dennet has no agent to react to all of those signals.
To perceive. To judge. To cause action.
If he had an agent he would have failed to explain anything - he would have just pushed
the problem off into the agent.
To do those, an
On 8/10/2012 4:57 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:36:22AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
But a course of action could be 'selected', i.e. acted upon, without
consciousness (in fact I often do so). I think what constitutes
consciousness is making up a narrative about what
On 8/11/2012 3:33 AM, Roger wrote:
*The question of self. Dennet is here expanded through the use of Leibniz's
monads*
*as Kant's categories with self as a supercategory logically including all of
Kant's*
*categories.*
Dennet has painted himself into a corner by following the materialistic
On 8/11/2012 5:13 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Leibniz seems to be the first philosopher (and one of the few) to discuss the
unconscious, which was necessary, since like God (or some Cosmic intelligence),
it is an
integral part of his metaphysical system.
In Leibniz's metaphysics, the lowest
On 8/11/2012 5:56 AM, Roger wrote:
Positivism seems to rule out native intelligence.
I can't see how knowledge could be created on a blank
slate without intelligence.
Or for that matter, how the incredibly unnatural structure
of the carbon atom could have been created somehow
somewhere by mere
On 8/11/2012 6:00 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
No, the agent is not part of the material world, it is nonmaterial.
It has no extension and so is outside of spacetime.
Mind itself is such (as Descartes observed).
Maybe. But wherever 'the agent' is, it is a non-explanation of agency. If you're
On 8/11/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either
On 8/11/2012 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
So no wonder God wouldn't give his name
God's true name is Bob but He's reluctant for that to become well known because He's
in the Witness Protection
On 8/11/2012 11:28 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55
On 8/12/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let phi_i be an enumeration of the (partial) computable function.
u is universal if phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). (x,y) = some number code for the
couple (x, y)
So can y be some number code for a pair (a,b) and b a code for a pair (c,d),...?
Brent
On 8/12/2012 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The
On 8/13/2012 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The infinite tape is only a rather misleading pedagogical folklore. Example of universal
number are brain, computer, programming language interpreters, etc. Universal pattern
in the game of life are finite pattern. The infinite tape here is the
On 8/14/2012 10:22 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
No, the artificial man does not have a conscious self (subjectivity) to
experience (to feel) the world.
And you know this how?
You could show a movie of happenings
in his mind, but there'd be nobody there to watch it.
I don't think you
Oh. Monads. Well I'm glad we didn't leave the explanation in terms of something poorly
understood like 'agency'.
Brent
On 8/14/2012 10:34 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Excellent point. My only answer is that the self or agent has to be a monad.
because only monads can perceive (although
On 8/14/2012 10:38 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
No,
Why not?
except in case anyone's interested, there is a hybrid,
which might have a future, the Rat Brain Robot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g
So the neurons of a rat's brain can constitute a mind, but computer chips
On 8/14/2012 10:42 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could
function.
And I'd say why can't everything just function by itself? If God is just a placeholder
word for whatever it is that makes things work it doesn't add
On 8/14/2012 6:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:25:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
So the neurons of a rat's brain can constitute a mind, but computer chips
with the
same functionality can't?
Brent
It's begging the question to say the computer chips have
On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Dear Russell:
When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not
its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice.
Every machine that built itself was not built by Russell.
Brent
--
You received this message because
On 8/14/2012 8:35 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
I have done exactly as I challenged Russell.
That you built a machine that built itself would imply that you built yourself. Which
implies you arose from nothing, otherwise there would have been a prior part of you which
you didn't build.
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the generator being part of you make it your choice? You
might define me and part of me before. It
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would
On 8/16/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine
On 8/16/2012 8:34 AM, William R. Buckley wrote:
I used the term **omniscience** in a rather general way, as a substitute for the term
**universal**
though it should be said that the purpose was to serve as adjective to the term
**computational**
rather than the other way around, as might
On 8/16/2012 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:59, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
Are you reading Stanley Salthy? Know of his work in hierarchy theory?
I don't find references. Please give a link, or do a summary, if possible explaining why
that would be relevant.
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve
the
halting problem for a particular algorithm.
And unless
On 8/17/2012 12:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't follow this. Can you explain how?
If super intelligent aliens secretly came to earth and predicted your actions, how has
that diminished the freedom you had before their arrival?
Someone asked why this concept is important. It isn't
On 8/17/2012 8:30 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
One -- especially a computer -- cannot experience abstractions.
One (ie only living entities) can only experience the concrete.
Except physics tells us that concrete is mostly empty space and a ray in an enormous
Hilbert space.
Brent
Riddle:
On 8/17/2012 10:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
A computer can not experience the wonder produced by the night sky,
for example.
Many assertions...no proofs.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
On 8/17/2012 10:30 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view (perhaps not yours) things are as they are and move as they
do for a reason, called sufficient reason.
Science is the pursuit of sufficient reasons.
I doubt that. I think science is about finding good explanations, and good means
On 8/17/2012 10:52 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view, this is the Chicken vs Egg paradox, my solution
to it being that life has been present even before the Big Bang
in the fiorm of (cosmic) intelligence.
And what testable consequences are implied by that 'solution'?
Brent
--
You
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth
On 8/17/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular
On 8/17/2012 12:35 PM, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
More simply, materialism contains no concept of a singular focussed agent, the
self.
So it cannot explain very much,
On the contrary, it has the hope of explaining the self - whereas assuming the self does
not.
Brent
for the self
-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-18, 06:26:11
*Subject:* Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has
On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand 2+2 = 4.
2+2=4 is easy.
I understand 2+2=4 is quasi infinitely more complex.
Dear Bruno
On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen
I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.
Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
post! Why are you so wrong.
Roger
I glad Roger cleared that up. :-)
Brent
Shut up he explained.
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
On 8/21/2012 9:54 AM, benjayk wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows
On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could
On 8/21/2012 3:26 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response
On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my
point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's
Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations
On 8/22/2012 6:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more
thinking.
Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are
merely
theoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have
On 8/22/2012 1:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
Do computers have intuition ?
I believe that intuition is necessary to solve a puzzle or
prove a mathematical or logical stratement. To produce
something new or previously unknown.
Intuiition may be like inference, a form of synthetic
On 8/22/2012 1:04 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote on list:
/Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you aren't aware
of any preceding thought process leading to it. According to (you?) computers are never
aware of anything, so everything they produce is
On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem
601 - 700 of 5480 matches
Mail list logo
