On 27 Sep 2011, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/27/2011 5:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Okay, there may be other subjects, besides number theory and
arithmetical truth where other forms
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Do you agree that if a
>> non-observable causes a change in an observable, that would be like
>> magic from the point of view of a scientist?
>
> Not at all. We observe 3-p changes caused by 1-p intentionality
> routinely. There is a study
On 27 Sep 2011, at 20:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yes, thanks.
It's interesting that he goes from showing how neurons plausibly have
micro-agency, to then insisting in part 7 that we must reduce
consciousness to-unconsciousness.
He explains this already in his oldest book "brainstorm". I agree
> At what point does mathematical truth stop? It seems to be the
existence of
> some would imply the existence of all.
Like I said, I need to let this marinate in my consciousness a while.
I agree that all mathematical constructs must have the same kind of
existence, the same ontological status.
On 27 Sep 2011, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/27/2011 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Sep 2011, at 21:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/26/2011 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Suppose that you are currently in state S (which exist by the
comp assumption).
But what does "you" refer to?
Your
On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
N. Millions of neurons fire simultaneously in separate regions of
the brain. Your assumptions about chain reactions being the only way
that neurons fire is not correct. You owe the brain an apolo
Jon, (nihil0)
On 28 Sep 2011, at 01:18, nihil0 wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:46 am, meekerdb wrote:
I think Daniel Dennett's book "Elbow Room" is an excellent defense
of compatibilist free
will and why it is the only kind worth having.
Great suggestion. The wikipedia page was fairly informative,
On 9/27/2011 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2011, at 13:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
For well-defined propositions regarding the numbers I think the
values are confined to true or false.
Jason
--
[SPK]
Not in general, unless one is
On Sep 28, 9:43 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> Do you agree that if a
> >> non-observable causes a change in an observable, that would be like
> >> magic from the point of view of a scientist?
>
> > Not at all. We observe 3-p changes c
On Sep 28, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > N. Millions of neurons fire simultaneously in separate regions of
> > the brain. Your assumptions about chain reactions being the only way
> > t
On 28 Sep 2011, at 05:44, Pierz wrote:
OK, well I think this and the other responses (notably Jason's) have
brought me a lot closer to grasping the essence of this argument. I
can see that the set of integers is also the set of all possible
information states, and that the difference between th
On Sep 28, 9:48 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2011, at 20:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Yes, thanks.
>
> > It's interesting that he goes from showing how neurons plausibly have
> > micro-agency, to then insisting in part 7 that we must reduce
> > consciousness to-unconsciousness.
>
> He e
On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an "observer moment".
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1Q&NR=1
>
> Brent
Very cool, thanks for posting. Of course, I think that his
observations are entirely consistent with my hypothesis. Our native
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 02:35:21AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >
> > "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all."
> >
> >
> A few people on this list have repeated this sentiment, but I wonder if it
> is really so. If there
> Not at all. That would be a physicalist revisionist definition of
> numbers. You need to "instantiate" 17, in some way, to talk about 17,
> but 17 itself does not need instantiation. With or without any
> physical universe, 17 remain a prime number.
With or without a mind too, I presume yo
15 matches
Mail list logo
