But since practically anything can represent nearly anything else,
it's ultimately all in the mind of the beholder.
The representation must account for the observation.
Hmmm? I'm not sure what you're saying here. How would the
representation account for the observation? Do you mean that
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Dec 2009, at 20:51, Rex Allen wrote:
We see evolution...but it only
exists in our minds, as a tool for our understanding. It's not
something that exists in the world. Again, taking the physicalist
view.
We see
On 12 Dec 2009, at 19:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:
For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
matter,
too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
reffering to some real (in the sense
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Though in another way I think we already have a theory of everything a
theory can explain *ultimately* (which is *not even remotely* close to
everything, since the more you trascend a theory the bigger the
On 13 Dec 2009, at 16:40, Rex Allen wrote:
I diagnostic you have still some some trouble grasping completely the
7th and 8th step of UDA, to be frank. It is OK, take it easy.
Well, I think I grasp those points. I just don't think that they show
that they are the source of conscious
On 13 Dec 2009, at 18:20, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Though in another way I think we already have a theory of
everything a
theory can explain *ultimately* (which is *not even remotely*
close to
everything,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
I'm thinking of something
similar to the symbol grounding problem:
The Symbol Grounding Problem is related to the problem of how words
(symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what
7 matches
Mail list logo
