Dear Stephen,
The Pratt quote below shows disdain for historical solutions to the
mind-body problem, such as Descartes' theory that the two interact through
the pineal gland, but goes on to say that this is no reason to throw out
dualism altogether. Now, I have to admit, despite spending my
Dear Stathis,
In a phrase, I would loose choice. What you are asking me is to give up
any hope of understanding how my sense of being-in-the-world is related to
any other phenomena in the world of experience and instead to just blindly
believe some claim. Are we so frustrated that we will
Lee Corbin points to
Tipler's March 2005 paper The Structure of the World From Pure Numbers:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/4/R04
I tried to read this paper, but it was 60 pages long and extremely
technical, mostly over my head. The gist of it was an updating of
Tipler's Omega Point
Dear Stephen,
I have to confess that the mathematical intricacies of Chu spaces are quite
beyond me. However, this passage appears at the introduction to the cited
article:
We propose to reduce complex mind-body interaction to the elementary
interactions
of their constituents. Events of the
Hal,
Thanks for an illuminating explanation of Tipler's paper.
I wonder if you and/or any other members on this list have an opinion about
the validity of an article at
http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm
This is a discussion of WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST? (The author is
apparently a
Brian wrote
[Peter]
And if Platonia exists, it already contains every string that
could be output by the UD -- so what do you need a UD for?
[Lee]
It'll probably be retorted that it all has to do with
measure, but there are lots of machines (I mean TMs) in
Platonia, and lots
Dear Stathis,
Thank you for reading the paper in its entirety. Pratt's idea is very
subtle but the difference between the form of dualism that he is explaining
is very different from Descartes'. Pratt is considering Mind and body as
process, not substance. It is the difference between a
Dear Stephen,
Pearce spends considerable time in his thesis discussing the harm that
Brave New World has done to Utopian causes. I rather suspect that Huxley
would not have been disapproving, given his libertarian sympathies and
fondness for hallucinogens in his later work. Orwell is completely
Stathis,
Thanks for your identification of David Pearce - I see he was co-founder
(with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist Association. I have a lot of
respect for Bostrom's views.
However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST that I'm
interested in. This viewpoint
Dear list members,
I have found that the Wikipedia encyclopedia (composed and edited by
the public) can be a great source of linked information regarding the
topic of our discussion and can be used by beginners in our list to
become familiar with the topics that we discuss. I suppose that if
Norman wrote: Thanks for your identification of David Pearce - I see he
was
co-founder (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist
Association. I have a lot of respect for Bostrom's views.
However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about WHY DOES ANYTHING
EXIST that I'm interested in. This
Lee corbin wrote: Pratt's disdain follows from the obvious failures of
other models.
It does not take a logician or mathematician or philosopher of
unbelievable IQ to see that the models of monism that have
been advanced have a fatal flaw:
the inability to prove the necessity of
Hi Jonathan,
You say that if something and nothing are equivalent, then the big WHY
question is rendered meaningless.
But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking WHY does the integer
series -100 to +100 exist? Even though the sum of the integer series is
zero, that doesn't render the
Dear Stathis,
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In
Dear Stephen,
Pearce spends considerable time in his thesis discussing
14 matches
Mail list logo
