On 01 Sep 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/1/2012 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the
physical time too, as the whole physics emerges from the first
person plural indeterminacy. But to define computation, we need a
thrid
On 01 Sep 2012, at 20:07, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
Intuitively it is the limit of the number going through your actual
state in bigger and bigger finite portions of the UD*. Technically
you need the logic S4grz1, Z1* and X1* to define it properly. We
know it is exists if comp is
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is
equally
I forgot some words: (of computations, in bold and underlined
below). Sorry.
On 01 Sep 2012, at 16:15, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno
On 9/1/2012 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the physical time too, as
the whole physics emerges from the first person plural indeterminacy. But to define
computation, we need a thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates,
Bruno wrote:
*Intuitively it is the limit of the number going through your actual state
in bigger and bigger finite portions of the UD*. Technically you need the
logic S4grz1, Z1* and X1* to define it properly. We know it is exists if
comp is correct, and so we an use it to test comp. The measure
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally
important to define time.
In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence
.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-30, 13:25:09
Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ?
I think that thinking can be best understood as hypothetical feeling. If you
start from sensation and allow that through time, memory
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define
time.
In the
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important
to define time.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi John Clark
Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012
Leibniz
: What is thinking ?
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to
define time.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi John Clark
Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30
-
*From:* Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-30, 11:16:13
*Subject:* Re: What is thinking ?
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally
important to define time.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally
important to define time.
In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0),
s(s(0)) ... is enough, notably to named the steps of execution of the
UD
Time: 2012-08-30, 12:14:37
Subject: Re: Re: What is thinking ?
Hi
I agree with what you say about thought but the question was about thinking
which to me suggests a process. The word thinking is a verb, meaning something
(the thinker) is doing something (thinking).
There is a dictionary
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to
define time.
In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... is
enough, notably to
I think that thinking can be best understood as hypothetical feeling. If
you start from sensation and allow that through time, memory would elide
separate instances of sense together, giving us meta-sensation or emotion.
This can be thought of as an emergent property, as a melody is an emergent
I don´t know
2012/8/30 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi John Clark
Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function.
- Receiving the
17 matches
Mail list logo
