On 28 Jul 2009, at 21:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:38, David Nyman wrote:
...
be conceived for this purpose to
be 'sequentially resolving' each 'OM-programme-step'? Indeed my
understanding is that this dovetailed sequentiality is actually a
key
On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 July, 17:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Gosh, David, you are a champion for the difficult questions.
Merci maitre, but I really only meant this rhetorically!
Oh! I was a bit rhetorical myself.
On behalf of
the One
Here
2009/7/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Here you are very rhetorical. You could even be close to being comp-
blasphemous.
Ah, but is there comp-excommunication?
I should have use
third party, but my hands did not cooperate; when I type, they are
too quick for my brain to follow.
So
On 30 Jul 2009, at 14:00, David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Here you are very rhetorical. You could even be close to being comp-
blasphemous.
Ah, but is there comp-excommunication?
If comp is true, nature does it eventually. But it can take a long time.
This
Hi, David,
I am deeply moved that you spent so close a look at my questions - taking
them seriously enough to reply in length and kind. I will re-re-reread your
posts (more than just to me) and try to arrive at some readable response in
3 - 30 daysG if I can.
I don't promise to oppose, maybe in
Hi, Bruno,
let me skip the technical part and jump on the following text.
*F u n c t i o n* as I believe is - for you - the y = f(x) *form*. For me:
the *activity -* shown when plotting on a coordinate system the f(x) values
of the Y-s to the values on the x-axle resulting in a relation (curve).
Okay, I've reworked my views a bit based on the discussion thus far.
It seems to me that the primary meaning of to exist is to be conscious.
But what causes conscious experience? Well, I'm beginning to think
that nothing causes it. Our conscious experience is fundamental,
uncaused, and
Hi John, and the other.
John motivates me to explain what is a function, for a mathematician.
On 30 Jul 2009, at 17:53, John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Bruno,
let me skip the technical part
OK. But I remind you this current thread *is* technical.
and jump on the following text.
F u n c t i o n
On 27 July, 14:17, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what RITSIAR means? I
cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it.
On a (slightly) more serious
2009/7/30 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
[[sound of footsteps]]]
Please allow me to introduce myself ...
Avaunt, ye blood-sucking fiend!
Van Helsing (retd.)
On 27 July, 14:17, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Could
2009/7/30 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com:
It seems to me that the primary meaning of to exist is to be conscious.
But what causes conscious experience? Well, I'm beginning to think
that nothing causes it. Our conscious experience is fundamental,
uncaused, and irreducible.
Why do we think
On 27 July, 18:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jul 2009, at 14:57, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 July, 09:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The UDA is a reasoning which shows that once we postulate an
ontological physical universal, it is impossible to recover
On 28 July, 00:34, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAICS, until these 'under-the-carpet' issues are squarely faced, the
customary waving away of the brain-mind relation as a simplistic
functional identity remains pure materialist prejudice, and on the
basis of the above, flatly
2009/7/30 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Unless an argument is put forward for Platonism being
preferable to materialism, it doesn't get off the ground.
But surely it's already up in the air?
David
On 28 July, 00:34, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAICS, until these
14 matches
Mail list logo
