On Friday, March 22, 2013 1:15:58 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/19/2013 11:24 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
This extract from Chesterton has little sense without what precedes and
follows.
2013/3/16 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of
course, all
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley tjp.bay...@gmail.com wrote:
I think explanations are important to prove causation ;-) and it's
interesting that you can break this example down. Each explanatory step is
materially plausible (it has a satisfactory public explanation), right up
to the
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:42:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley tjp.b...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I think explanations are important to prove causation ;-) and it's
interesting that you can break this example down. Each explanatory step is
On 3/19/2013 11:24 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:44:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Correlation, even 100% correlation, does not equal causation.
BULLSHIT! If when X is changed there is ALWAYS a change in Y in the
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:44:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
Correlation, even 100% correlation, does not equal causation.
BULLSHIT! If
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If when X is changed there is ALWAYS a change in Y in the same
direction, and when Y changes you can ALWAYS find a change in X that
preceded it, then X causes Y. IT'S WHAT THE WORD CAUSES MEANS!
Two flowers bloom at
On 20 Mar 2013, at 17:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If when X is changed there is ALWAYS a change in Y in the same
direction, and when Y changes you can ALWAYS find a change in X
that preceded it, then X causes Y. IT'S WHAT
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Bayley wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:44:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley tjp.bay...@gmail.com wrote:
I always hear an audible click very shortly after I see the light switch
on. There is no direct causation,
Yes but how do you know that, how can you prove there is no causation? It's
easy, just buy another light switch of the same
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:09:24 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
If when X is changed there is ALWAYS a change in Y in the same
direction, and when Y changes you can ALWAYS find a change in X that
preceded
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If when X happens Y always happens AND when X doesn't happen Y never
happens then we can say with great confidence that X causes Y because
that's what the word causes means.
Does this not imply that X causes Y if and
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:37:54 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley tjp.b...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I always hear an audible click very shortly after I see the light
switch on. There is no direct causation,
Yes but how do you know that, how can you
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove
that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry.
What the hell???
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:55:50 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove
that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry.
What the
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove
that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry.
What the hell???
Books aren't neurological, right?
Right, but they are certainly material.
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:44:23 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove
that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry.
What the hell???
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:44:23 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove
that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry.
What the hell???
On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote:
There is not a direct link between the light switch and the light going
on either,
the closing of the light switch just caused a current to flow in the wire,
the
current flow didn't cause the light either it just caused the filament in
the
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:51:50 PM UTC-4, Tom Bayley wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:44:23 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We can write books and other people can read them, so that must
prove that consciousness is
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:26:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote:
There is not a direct link between the light switch and the light
going on either, the closing of the light switch just caused a current to
flow in the wire, the current flow didn't
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 9:44:38 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:26:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote:
There is not a direct link between the light switch and the light
going
On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true
or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion.
That is absolutely true,
On Monday, March 18, 2013 8:15:39 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion.
That is
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:55:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The man who thinks he is logical is often just stubborn.
If being ruled by your head rather than your gut or your crotch is stubborn
then being stubborn is a virtue.
There are many things related to consciousness
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 12:34:20 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The man who thinks he is logical is often just stubborn.
If being ruled by your head rather than your gut or your crotch is
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been famously
been related to skirt lengths
If when skirt lengths changed there was ALWAYS a change in the stock market
in the same direction, and when the
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been famously
been related to skirt lengths
If when skirt lengths changed
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been
famously been related
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:24:40 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Correlation, even 100% correlation, does not equal causation.
BULLSHIT! If when X is changed there is ALWAYS a change in Y in the same
direction, and when Y changes you can ALWAYS find a change in X that
preceded
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion.
That is absolutely true, there are more ways of being wrong than of being
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of
course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than
themselves. A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an
On 3/16/2013 3:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not)
is
certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all
intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A
Christian
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 6:41:58 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/16/2013 3:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of
course, all intelligent ideas are
37 matches
Mail list logo
