On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:45:43PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
> >
> > OK, so by necessary primitive, you mean the syntactic or microscopic
> > layer. But take this away, and you no longer have emergence. See
> > endless discussions on emergence - my paper, or Jochen Fromm's book for
> > instance. D
You could look up "Murmurs in the Cathedral", Daniel Dennett's review
of Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind", in the Times literary
supplement (and maybe online somewhere?)
Here's an excerpt from a review of the review:
--
However, Penrose's main thesis, for which all this scientific
expos
On Jun 19, 12:31 pm, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interaction is in terms of fields - electromagnetic for most of our
> everyday examples. The fields themselves are emergent effects from
> virtual boson exchange. Now how is this related to sensing exactly?
> (Other than sensing b
DN: '
> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
> a 'modulated conti
David Nyman wrote:
> On Jun 19, 12:31 pm, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Interaction is in terms of fields - electromagnetic for most of our
>> everyday examples. The fields themselves are emergent effects from
>> virtual boson exchange. Now how is this related to sensing exactl
David wrote: < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jun 21, 2007 2:31 PM
David, you are still too mild IMO. You wrote:
"... "there is a mathematical formalism in which interaction is modelled in
terms of 'fields'".
I would say: we call 'fields' what seems to be callable 'interaction' upon
the outcome of certain
On Jun 21, 8:24 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds like the sign is already up and it reads, "Participatorily intuit the
> magic of the de-formalized ding an sich."
I'd be happy with that sign, if you substituted a phrase like 'way of
being' for 'magic'. There is no analogy be
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'r
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'r
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'r
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'r
On Jun 21, 8:42 pm, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David, you are still too mild IMO.
I try not to be churlish.
> I like your quest for "de-formalized participants" (like e.g. energy?)
Not sure - can you say more?
> The 'matches' are considered WITHIN the aspects included into the
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:44:54PM -, David Nyman wrote:
> There is no analogy between the two cases, because
> Russell seeks to pull the entire 1-person rabbit, complete with 'way
> of being', out of a hat that contains only 3-person formalisations.
> This is magic with a vengeance.
You ass
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:29:11AM -0700, Pete Carlton wrote:
>
> it is disconcerting that he does not even address the issue, and
> often writes as if an algorithm could have only the powers it could
> be proven mathematically to have in the worst case.
>
>
>
I agree with Dennett here. J
On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to
> bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
> about at the moment. I will often employ counterexamples simply to
> illustrate poi
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:22:31AM -, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to
> > bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
> > about at
16 matches
Mail list logo
