Quentin writes
I think I've waited long enough... Kurt, you are just a guy who like read
himself You'll never make your point, because you don't have one... you
just like insulting other people and show your big neck...
By now, your messages goes directly to the trash bin... Ciao and
Bruno writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find an assumption of COMP far more tenuous than an assumption of a
natural world
I respect this.
I think that there has been a good deal of confusion between
(I) computationalism: the doctrine that robots running classical
programs can be
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[GK] Speculation for me is not a pejorative term, to begin with. Yes, there is a sense in which all theories are speculative but some have ceased to be purely so because either empirical or heuristic evidence was found in their favor. That is the
Lee and others:
I was surprised to see your remark that
functional(ism) and computational(ism) are in the same
camp (comp?). I treat (my) functions vaguely, leave it
to nature to invent (use?) whatever she can while
all comp-related isms are applicable within human
logic. At least said to be
On 31 Aug 2005, at 08:26, Lee Corbin wrote:
Bruno writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find an assumption of COMP far more tenuous than an assumption
of a natural world
I respect this.
I think that there has been a good deal of confusion between
(I) computationalism: the doctrine
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to show you I am not mean spirited may I make the following suggestive question: "Could your argument be made on the basis of something not as drastic as YD, say a Turing Test type argument, which would not require you to take someone apart
On 31 Aug 2005, at 08:26, Lee Corbin wrote:
Bruno writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find an assumption of COMP far more tenuous than an assumption
of a natural world
I respect this.
I think that there has been a good deal of confusion between
(I) computationalism: the
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GK, Godfrey) wrote:
[BM]
As Russell point out to Godfrey, it is important to distinguish
sort of constructive physicalism a-la-Schmidhuber, where the
physical universe is a computational object and comp where there is
no physical universe
Hi Russell
Thanks for your lucid comments. Maybe you are a better advocate
of Bruno's than Bruno himself...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:47:38 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GK]
Just to show you I am not mean spirited may I
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GK, Godfrey) wrote:
Hi, Bruno,
Thanks for your considerate reply and for whatever you
expressed your consent to. I try to address the rest:
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are using human natural science and human
science (history) to
relativize religion.
And then you are doing the same to
--- Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Thanks for the article, it is beautifully presented
and re-presented good entertainment for me.
Brought back memories from Tegmark's child-age, when I
joined the chorus: the Big Bang that never happened
and I
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:08:16 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GK]
Speculation
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:12:43 -0700
Subject: Re: subjective reality
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Hi Hal,
Thanks for your clarifying comment. Yes I think
that is the basis of my objection to Bruno and I
am glad someone has gotten it!
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005
Hi Saibal, Norman
I did not mean to intervene but so that my name is not
called in vain (:-) I would like to mention that, yes, I read
Tegmark's paper and enjoyed it much though I could not
help but notice that, though he promises, he never gets
to Level IV (my favorite) on this paper, to my
Hi Godfrey,
Thanks for the ID. Now I know that Godfrey is one of the
mind-stretchers on this list.
I hope that Saibal will eventually tell us the reason(s) for
Dishonorable Mention.
I read Tegmark's paper too, where he seems to attribute the beginning of
It to Inflation. But he
Dear Friends,
Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a Beginning?
We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of our observed
universe as we can wind our way back in history to a Big Bang Event Horizon,
but this event itself must have some form of antecedent
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your comments. I'm not a physicist. Still, my logic tells
me you must be right about Existence having no Beginning - what could the
alternative be? Nevertheless, I have to confess that the concept of
something that is eternal, without beginning or end, is, to me,
20 matches
Mail list logo
