Anna,
Searching for "essentialism" on the net I see many contradictory
definitions. I should perhaps say that my use is a bit nearer to the
Merriam-Webster dictionary...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essentialism
... than to the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esse
Hi Anna,
Le 14-déc.-08, à 03:30, A. Wolf a écrit :
>
> One of the reasons I rarely post to this list is that many people here
> seem trapped in an eternal series of meaningless essentialistic
> debates.
I have already commented this, and I realize I have, more or less
consciously, associated
Hi Kim,
On 13 Dec 2008, at 02:27, Kim Jones wrote:
> Isn't it great that we may soon be able to capture the soul to
> disk You could have a Catholic soul, try an Islamic soul, reboot
> as a Buddhist - any religion you want
I am not sure someone will say yes to a doctor who propose an
On 12 Dec 2008, at 23:38, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> Bruno:
> I am uncertain that this was answered.
> You are starting with mathematics,
Not really. I am starting with the "real world". I assume you have a
brain disease and that your doctor proposed to you an artificial
digital, supposedly ma
On 13 Dec 2008, at 18:27, John Mikes wrote:
> Bruno wrote:
>
> "...I am not my body - I am not my brain --
> I can change everything and anything I want about me and still
> remain me ergo "I" am an immaterial something: probably a number or
> a very long bitstring which can, like any data,
On 14 Dec 2008, at 03:30, A. Wolf wrote:
>
> One of the reasons I rarely post to this list is that many people here
> seem trapped in an eternal series of meaningless essentialistic
> debates.
Who ? Where ? How? (I hope you are alluding to the materialists here).
> Nothing objective or con
Blame me if you want...
I'm just trying to see whether the exposition can be made with a good
deal less number-spinning
Truth is, most people - given the choice - would probably prefer to
avoid language pretty much all together -
for the dangers you so aptly characterise
Language is a bag o
One of the reasons I rarely post to this list is that many people here
seem trapped in an eternal series of meaningless essentialistic
debates. Nothing objective or conclusive ever comes from
essentialistic arguments where people bicker over what some word or
concept "really means".
Science used
Bruno wrote:
"...I am not my body - I am not my brain --
I can change everything and anything I want about me and still remain me
ergo "I" am an immaterial something: probably a number or a very long
bitstring which can, like any data, be crunched..."
*
I like the 'probably', with a 'meaningless'
Bruno
Thanks for the very useful summary and the warning that we might be
zooming in on fractal infinity - no way will that happen from here on!
>
> The mechanist hypothesis is the hypothesis that we are machine so
> that, in principle, any part of us can be replaced. There is no
> special
Bruno:
I am uncertain that this was answered.
You are starting with mathematics, and going to some Multiversal
computation program? If there is no physical universe, what does the
computer run on? With no energy, how are your thoughts being
generated?
Hi Kim,
I recall the plan, the "definition" of machine, and then I comment
your last post. I do this for preventing we get lost (or not lost) in
a fractal conversation, which could be nice, but which is infinite,
and we have to not abuse of Wei Dai hospitality. Right?
The pl
12 matches
Mail list logo
