On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:35, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/9/17 Bruno Marchal :
>
>> Then for the inside/personal views, the whole of human math including
>> Cantor paradise cannot be enough to describe the human mind. It is
>> more general:
>
> In that case, what light does the comp approach shed on
On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Bruno,
>
> it is not very convincing when you dissect my sentences and
> interject assuring remarks on statements to come later in the
> sentence, negating such remarks in advance, on a different basis.
>
> I argued that - upon what you (an
On 17 Sep 2009, at 23:55, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17 Sep, 00:52, David Nyman wrote:
>> 2009/9/16 Flammarion :
>>
>>> The knowabilitry of a claim about what powers numbers
>>> have can only depend on what labels are correctly attached.
>>> Petrol is not flammable just becaue I attached the
On 17 Sep, 17:35, David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/9/17 Bruno Marchal :
>
> > Then for the inside/personal views, the whole of human math including
> > Cantor paradise cannot be enough to describe the human mind. It is
> > more general:
>
> In that case, what light does the comp approach shed on the '
On 16 Sep, 18:52, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2009, at 17:25, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." wrote:
> >> the ocean of virtual particles which may give
> >> rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and
> >> thought.
>
> > I see no reason to belie
On 18 Sep 2009, at 10:46, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16 Sep, 18:52, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2009, at 17:25, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." wrote:
the ocean of virtual particles which may give
rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between m
2009/9/18 Flammarion :
>> In that case, what light does the comp approach shed on the 'causal
>> significance' of the inside view - i.e. with reference to the presumed
>> 'causal closure' of the physical narrative and the supposed
>> epiphenominalism or over-determination of consciousness with re
Yes, Bruno, it helps - however: I did not want to put you into any apology!
The list is a free communication among free spirits and controversy is part
of it.
What I 'read' in your reply still "sticks" within 'math' and my principal
point is: the image represented is STILL what a human mind MAY thi
Bruno:
It sounds as if the way to begin is with the latest Mendelson book.
Ronald
On Sep 18, 2:55 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
>
> You may ask Günther Greindl, who asked me references for the UDA and
> AUDA, and he put them on the list archive.
>
> g
Hi Ronald,
Mendelson' book is an excellent book.
The many editions of Boolos and Jeffrey are very good, but the
mathematical logic part is not really self-contained. I like very much
also the book by Epstein and Carnielli, and Epstein alone wrote nice
big books on both classical and non c
Adult videos. All content are free to watch and checked by our support
team. http://econuity.net/images/adult/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email
I give the answer.
On 17 Sep 2009, at 16:27, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 16 Sep 2009, at 18:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> If it is OK, in the next post we begin to address the computability
>> issue. I give you an anticipative exercise or subject reflection.
>> This is a deep exercis
Bruno,
I don't really remember what saying yes to the doctor entails.
If it signifies a willingness to be cloned by computation, shouldn't we be
saying yes to the Star Trek technician who controls the transporter? m.a.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal"
To:
S
13 matches
Mail list logo
