On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:28 am, Jason Resch wrote:
A brain also undergoes physical changes just as elaborate and
intricate (topologically) as the experiences taking place through
it,
I agree with the above.
yet the brain's changes you attribute to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless I think truth and goodness are
>> very intimately related.
>
> Plato and Plotinus identify God and the Good. Now, this is
> related to
> very subtle poin
On Aug 30, 4:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > Definitely, but the reasons that we have for causing those changes in
> > the semiconductor material are not semiconductor logics. They use
> > hardware logic to to get the hardware to do software logic
I just had an interesting idea with regards to our
ontological/epistemological debate. Could it be that the number 0 is
conscious itself, by virtue of being itself (and all numbers share that
property, because the make just sense relative to 0)? This would pretty much
merge our ideas, because we n
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> A molecule in a cell will behave exactly the same as a molecule
>> anywhere else in the universe. Do you believe otherwise? Do you have
>> any experimental evidence?
>
> Here you first have to define what a molecule is. It happens to be t
On 30/08/2011, at 4:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Right. That's why I keep saying there's nothing that defies science
> here. I'm not talking about magic. Human consciousness is a fugue of
> high level processes and low level processes interacting with each
> other in their own native terms.
Bu
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Right. That's the same thing I'm saying. When you decide to move your
> hand, that decision corresponds to neurotransmitters firing. It's the
> same thing. Considered from the 1p subjective view it's psychology -
> "I want to reach for tha
On 30 Aug 2011, at 14:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Definitely, but the reasons that we have for causing those changes
in
the semiconductor material are not semiconductor logics. They use
hardware logic
On Aug 30, 10:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 30/08/2011, at 4:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Right. That's why I keep saying there's nothing that defies science
> > here. I'm not talking about magic. Human consciousness is a fugue of
> > high level processes and low level processes in
On 30 Aug 2011, at 13:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Not sure I understand. "God" does not "need" we believe in It.
Right, so it makes sense to not believe in it.
That does not follow.
And I am not sure it makes sense to not believe in it, except when
you
give it a name.
(
On Aug 30, 11:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> > Right. That's the same thing I'm saying. When you decide to move your
> > hand, that decision corresponds to neurotransmitters firing. It's the
> > same thing. Considered from the 1p s
On Aug 30, 11:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2011, at 14:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 4:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> Definitely, but the reasons that we have for causing those changes
> >>> in
> >>> the semic
On 30.08.2011 17:11 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Craig
Weinberg wrote:
Right. That's the same thing I'm saying. When you decide to move
your hand, that decision corresponds to neurotransmitters firing.
It's the same thing. Considered from the 1p sub
On 30 Aug 2011, at 16:13, benjayk wrote:
I just had an interesting idea with regards to our
ontological/epistemological debate. Could it be that the number 0 is
conscious itself, by virtue of being itself (and all numbers share
that
property, because the make just sense relative to 0)?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> I am talking in general. In the human affairs, all general statements
>>> admit many exception. Don't take me too much seriously.
>>> Just saying that in the fundamental inquiry, dogma are problematic.
>>> In science (when working well
On 8/30/2011 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you deem all phenomena in the
universe to be a priori mechanistic, then that word has no meaning. If
you want it to mean something then you have to allow that some
phenomena are not mechanistic. In that case, if you had to say that
something in the c
On Aug 30, 5:31 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/30/2011 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > If you deem all phenomena in the
> > universe to be a priori mechanistic, then that word has no meaning. If
> > you want it to mean something then you have to allow that some
> > phenomena are not mechanistic.
Hi Jason,
Interleaving...
On 8/29/2011 8:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:00 AM, "Stephen P. King"
wrote:
On 8/28/2011 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Capillary action is not a violation of the laws of physics. What
about substance monism precludes any life form from
On 8/29/2011 6:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen and Jason,
interesting discours, but you use concepts that beg for my questioning.
Dualism may be an observation based on phenomena we misunderstand and
explain to the level of "present" theories. A violation of the laws of
physics asks: are those
On 8/30/2011 11:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2011, at 14:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Definitely, but the reasons that we have for causing those changes in
the semiconductor material are not sem
Sophistry has a smell. Sometimes an argument smells of it, but it may
be a lot harder to pin down where the specious logic is – especially
when it’s all dressed up in a mathematical formalism that may be
inaccessible to the non-mathematician/logician. However the problem
with the arguments relating
On 30 Aug 2011, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2011, at 14:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Definitely, but the reasons that we have for causing thos
22 matches
Mail list logo
