To the quote of Lee's remark:
I would try Vernumft (which may as well be similarly
inaccurate for 'consciousness'). There were some
German speaking souls(!) who used it quite effectively
G.
I try for'mind':the mentality aspect of the living
complexity which says not much more if 'mentality'
is
Aditya writes
[LC]:
Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
event and observer moment can't really be said to be at
all the same thing.
--- Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell writes
John M. wrote
To Russell's 4 coordinates of (any?) event: how
come
the occurrence (event!) of a 'good idea' in my
mind -
(mind: not a thing, not a place, not
time-restricted)
should have t,x,y,z coordinates?
Hi John,
Le 01-août-05, à 16:57, John M a écrit :
Also simulating menatlity from computer
expressions seems reversing the fact that in comp (AI
etc.) the computer science attempts to simulate
certain and very limited items we already discovered
from our mind.
Except that since Turing,
John M:
snip:)
To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already
HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not.
At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced
thinking community.
John M
I think the name was a play the name of another book
The discovery of the mind by Bruno
Russell submits the following as clarifications:
An event is a particular set of coordinates (t,x,y,z) in 4D
spacetime. This is how it is used in GR, anyway.
An observer moment is a set of constraints, or equivalently
information known about the world (obviously at a moment of time).
It
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 02:00:30PM -0700, John M wrote:
I salute Lee's new subject designation.
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond
Russell writes
John M. wrote
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond such restrictions.
I agree: that is, so long as we can
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 08:09:46PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
I am surprised about that!
Lee wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the author
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[LC]:
Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
event and observer moment can't really be said to be at
all the same thing. (Folks like Russell
13 matches
Mail list logo
