On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
So I'm puzzled as to how answer Bruno's question. In general I
don't believe in
zombies, but that's in the same way I don't believe my glass of
water will
freeze at 20degC. It's an opinion about what is likely, not what is
possible.
Hi Bruno,
I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on
the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond to.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote:
In the meantime, I at least want to say that
On 11/19/08, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... Keep in mind we try to refute the
conjunction MECH and MAT.
Nevertheless your intuition below is mainly correct, but the point is
that accepting it really works, AND keeping MECH, will force us to
negate MAT.
Bruno
On 19 Nov 2008, at 22:16, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
I was just quoting you: And if you do the math, you get
a physics extracted from mechanism, and you can use it to confirm
mechanism or to refute it. Did you mean refutes materialism?
Thanks for quoting the entire sentence,
On 19 Nov 2008, at 22:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Bruno,
If no one objects, I will present MGA 2 (soon).
I also agree completely and am curious to see where this is going.
Please continue!
Thanks Telmo, thanks also to
On 19 Nov 2008, at 23:26, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 20:17, Jason Resch wrote:
To add some clarification, I do not think spreading Alice's logic
gates across a field and allowing cosmic rays to cause
On 20 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Could you alter the so-lucky cosmic explosion beam a little bit so
that Alice still succeed her math exam, but is, reasonably enough, a
zombie during the exam. With zombie taken in the traditional sense
of
Kory and Dennett.
Of course you
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let us go back to the point. The point of MGA is to show that MEC +
MAT implies a contradiction. You can see that it is equivalent with
- the proposition saying that MEC implies NON MAT (mechanism refutes
materialism).
- the proposition saying that MAT implies NON
Thanks fo your clarification Anna. We will have the opportunity to
come back on some nuances later. I basically agree with your solution,
but I would have to explain the entire MGA + a part of its
arithmetical translation to be completely accurate commenting your, a
bit to prematurely
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks fo your clarification Anna. We will have the opportunity to
come back on some nuances later. I basically agree with your solution,
but I would have to explain the entire MGA + a part of its
arithmetical
Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
So I'm puzzled as to how answer Bruno's question. In general I
don't believe in
zombies, but that's in the same way I don't believe my glass of
water will
freeze at 20degC. It's an opinion about what is likely, not
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
What I want to know is what result you will get if you start from the
axiom that *everything in universe is finite*.
One important function in Quantum Theory is the harmonic oscillator. So
I want to know: What is the corresponding function in discrete
On 20 Nov 2008, at 08:23, Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The last question (of MGA 1) is: was Alice, in this case, a zombie
during the exam?
Of course, my personal answer would take into account the fact that I
already have a problem with the
Hi Kory,
On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote:
I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on
the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond
to.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote:
Hi John,
It boils down to my overall somewhat negative position (although
I have no better one) of UDA, MPG, comp, etc. - all of them are
products of HUMAN thinking and restrictions as WE can imagine
the unfathomable existence (the totality - real TOE).
I find it a 'cousin' of the
On 19 Nov 2008, at 20:37, Michael Rosefield wrote:
Are not logic gates black boxes, though? Does it really matter what
happens between Input and Output? In which case, it has absolutely
no bearing on Alice's consciousness whether the gate's a neuron, an
electronic doodah, a team of
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The state machine that would represent her in the case of injection of
random noise is a different state machine that would represent her normally
functioning brain.
Absolutely so.
Bruno,
What about the state
On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I think you really you mean nomologically possible.
I mean logically possible, but I'm happy to change it to
nomologically possible for the purposes of this conversation.
I think Dennett changes the question by referring to
Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I think you really you mean nomologically possible.
I mean logically possible, but I'm happy to change it to
nomologically possible for the purposes of this conversation.
Doesn't the question go away if it is
On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Doesn't the question go away if it is nomologically impossible?
I'm sort of the opposite of you on this issue. You don't like to use
the term logically possible, while I don't like to use the term
nomologically impossible. I don't see the
Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Doesn't the question go away if it is nomologically impossible?
I'm sort of the opposite of you on this issue. You don't like to use
the term logically possible, while I don't like to use the term
nomologically
21 matches
Mail list logo
