Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 10:14:29 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science Hi Ste

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

oody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 10:04:04 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science 2012/12/8 Stephen P. King On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Fantastic links, spe

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

> > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Stephen P. King >> >> Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent >> collisions, keep oil and water separate. >> > > No they don't. The separation of oil and water is just the macroscopic > outcome of local interac

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 08 Dec 2012, at 16:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent collisions, keep oil and water separate. No they don't. The separation of oil and water is just the macroscop

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 12/8/2012 7:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent collisions, keep oil and water separate. Dear Roger, What determines the property of immiscibility of oil and water? I am asking you to consider the nature of propertie

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent > collisions, keep oil and water separate. > No they don't. The separation of oil and water is just the macroscopic outcome of local interactions between mol

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

2012/12/8 Stephen P. King > On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > Fantastic links, specially the latter. I´ll read it. > > This is my standpoint now: > > First is necessary to define existence. My standpoint is that what > exists is what the mind assumes that exist (because it i

Re: Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/8/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-08, 08:20:14 > Subject: Re: Re: The two wron

Re: Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

8:20:14 Subject: Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science Roger, BECs make that interaction possible. Don't you ever rad my posts? Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Bruno Marchal said > > "They are logically "interacting" t

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

gh], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/8/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-08, 05:01:39 > Subject: Re: The two wrong pa

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 10:14:29 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cogni

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

m: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-07, 07:53:54 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science On 12/7/2012 7:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, ? I think that's just more?aterialist wishful thinking, because mind and body are completely different

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

ly near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 10:14:29 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science Hi Stephen, This is the case with modern cognitive science: � 1)牋It ignored Desca

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Fantastic links, specially the latter. I´ll read it. This is my standpoint now: First is necessary to define existence. My standpoint is that what exists is what the mind assumes that exist (because it is relevant) . Dear Alberto, But thi

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 12/7/2012 9:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: "There are no "substances", there are only processes" In terms of category theory, this is like "there are no categoríes, there are only arrows!" Dear Alberto, Indeed! Have you studied a bit of N-Category theory

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Roger, Different substances have been shown to be capable of entanglement if they are in the form of a BEC- Bose-Einstein Condensate. Richard On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > "There are no "substances", there are only processes" > > In terms of category theory, this is

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 12/7/2012 7:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I think that's just more materialist wishful thinking, because mind and body are completely different substances, no matter what your philosophy or science, and cannot interact. The failure to solve the "hard problem" shows that. [Roger Clou

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 10:02:09 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science Hi Richard,? >> > A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If mind is >> > outside the physical world, how does it interact

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

.net] 12/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 10:14:29 Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science Hi Stephen, This is the c

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 05 Dec 2012, at 22:13, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, This is the case with modern cognitive science: 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) solution to the mind/brain problem in favor of treating both substances

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 05 Dec 2012, at 18:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno, Another quote I can't find is one to the effect that "For every complex problem one can usually find simple solutions that are almost always wrong." This is the case with modern cognitive science: 1) It ignored Descartes' two substa

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> >> > A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If mind >> >> > is >> >> > outside the physical world, how does it interact with body? Any >> >> > mechanism of >> >> > interaction you can propose would make

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Stephen, >This is the case with modern cognitive science: >> >> 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) >> solution to the mind/brain problem in favor of treating >> both substances as material. >> > > A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If mind i

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Richard, >> > A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If mind is > >> > outside the physical world, how does it interact with body? Any > >> > mechanism of > >> > interaction you can propose would make mind part of the physical > world, > >> > thus > >> > negating dualism.

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On 12/5/2012 3:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, This is the case with modern cognitive science: 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) solution to the mind/brain problem in favor of treating both substances as material. A common criticism of dualism is t

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> > Hi Roger, >> > >> > >> >> This is the case with modern cognitive science: >> >> >> >> 1) It ignored

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Richard, On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > > > >> This is the case with modern cognitive science: > >> > >> 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) > >> solution to the mind/b

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Roger, > > >> This is the case with modern cognitive science: >> >> 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) >> solution to the mind/brain problem in favor of treating >> both substances as material. > > > A common criticism

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Roger, This is the case with modern cognitive science: > > 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) > solution to the mind/brain problem in favor of treating > both substances as material. > A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If mind is outside the ph

The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Bruno, Another quote I can't find is one to the effect that "For every complex problem one can usually find simple solutions that are almost always wrong." This is the case with modern cognitive science: 1) It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain) solution to the mind/brain p