so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-14, 11:52:52
Subject: Re: imaginary numbers in comp
On 9/14/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
The difference is that a computer has
-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-09-14, 11:52:52
*Subject:* Re: imaginary numbers in comp
On 9/14/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
The difference is that a computer has no intelligence, cannot
deal with qualia, and is not alive.
Dear Roger
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-13, 15:58:20
Subject: Re: imaginary numbers in comp
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's Chinese Room
I've said it before I'll say it again,? Searle's
On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's
Chinese Room
I've said it before
content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:15:54
Subject: Re: imaginary numbers in comp
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities
And you have deduced this by using
Time: 2012-09-13, 12:11:51
Subject: Re: imaginary numbers in comp
This is why I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities,
whereas feelings can and do access arithmetic (even directly as rhythm, music,
some forms of visual art, etc).
Because we know about feelings, we
, 15:58:20
*Subject:* Re: imaginary numbers in comp
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's
Chinese Room
I've said it before I'll say
On 9/14/2012 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
This is the symbol
the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:15:54
Subject: Re: imaginary numbers in comp
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities
And you have deduced this by using
On Thu, Sept 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The menu is not the meal.
In other words X is not X and that is perfectly true, use and mention are
indeed not the same, but they are closely related.
To my mind, the fact that you have particular animus toward the Chinese
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sept 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The menu is not the meal.
In other words X is not X and that is perfectly true, use and mention
are indeed not the same, but they are closely
Hi everything-list
Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical quantitative or
objective
component as well as a feelings-spiritual qualitative or subjective components,
would it make any sense to do comp using complex numbers, where
the real part is the objective part of the
This is why I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities,
whereas feelings can and do access arithmetic (even directly as rhythm,
music, some forms of visual art, etc).
Because we know about feelings, we can project that knowledge on top of
arithmetic ideas and conceive of
On 13 Sep 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi everything-list
Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical
quantitative or objective
component as well as a feelings-spiritual qualitative or subjective
components,
would it make any sense to do comp using complex
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities
And you have deduced this by using the nothing but fallacy: even the
largest computer is nothing but a collection of on and off switches.
Never mind that
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:15:56 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities
And you have deduced this by using the nothing but fallacy: even the
On 9/13/2012 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:15:56 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities
And you
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
would it make any sense to do comp using complex numbers, where the real
part is the objective part of the mental the imaginary part is the
subjective part of the mental
The names real and imaginary are unfortunate because
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's Chinese Room
I've said it before I'll say it again, Searle's Chinese Room is the single
stupidest thought experiment ever devised by the mind of man. Of
We might as well just use ordered pairs of integers or rational numbers.
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:45:53 AM UTC-7, rclough wrote:
Hi everything-list
Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical quantitative
or objective
component as well as a feelings-spiritual
20 matches
Mail list logo
