On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its
local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to
time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if
reality is sometimes inconsistent?
This is a confusion of levels. Logic is rules
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg
On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM,
On 06 Sep 2012, at 16:28, Brian Tenneson wrote:
All numbers can be defined in terms of sets. The question becomes
this:
do sets have ontological primacy relative to mankind or are sets
invented or created by mankind?
I would say invented, as many different notion of sets can exist.
You
On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an
universal turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has
near
universal acceptance among computer scientists.
Yes indeed. I think there are two strong
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if
reality is sometimes inconsistent?
This is a confusion of levels. Logic is rules
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an
universal turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has
near
universal acceptance among computer scientists.
Yes indeed. I
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Leibniz divides the world into physical and mental states,
each a reflection of the other. The mental is mental and
the physical is not an illusion. You canstill stub your toe
on a rock. This philosophy is called Idealism.
Hi Brian Tenneson
Whether or not sets were there (true) a priori is a subject of debate.
You might want to see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
My own (uninformed) view is based on Leibnizian thinking.
He lists two kinds oif logic, necessary or rational logic,
which is
Hi Bruno Marchal
The rational view of God can be discussed logically and publicly,
such as in the philosophy of religion. But according to Christian
(especially Lutheran) tradition, that is only a description of God.
There is also a Living God (also called the Word, or the Christ)
that can
Hi Bruno Marchal
Eventually you will have to answer the question of what is teleportable.
I have no doubt that someday matter can be transported, even information.
Even energy.
But the more important question to me is whether or not experiences
(the stuff of life or consciousness) can be
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is a recent suggestion, corroborated by the salvia reports and
experiences. I was used to agree with Brouwer that consciousness and
subjective time are not separable, like the 1p logic examplifies
(S4Grz is both a temporal logic, and the machine's
An intention is a desire in the form of thought,
so is nonphysical, as are all of the processes of mind.
In Leibniz's philosophy, intentions are
essentially what L calls appetites in
monads. They are goal-directed,
following what Aristotle called end causation,
which are potential, pulling
According to my argument below, all rational truths must be a priori
and all contingent truths (facts) have to be a posteriori.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the
On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if
reality is sometimes inconsistent?
Hi Craig Weinberg
Although I don't follow Dawking's views on life and God,
I think his idea of semes, which are like genes but ideas instead,
is a very good one. If the logic follows through, then
man is the semes' way of propagating itself through society.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
On 9/7/2012 6:24 AM, benjayk wrote:
Why are two machines that can be used to emlate each other regarded to be
equivalent?
In my view, there is a big difference between computing the same and being
able to emulate each other. Most importantly, emulation only makes sense
relative to another
Hi Stephen P. King
There is only one physical world, but only the supreme
monad (supremem in the mental world) sees all and sees
all as it it is, clearly and wholly.
The individual point of view of the phjysical world
that each monad indirectly perceives is called the
phenomenological
Hi Stephen P. King
I think of the brain as a running sensor of the static platonic world.
Sort of like looking out of the car window as you speed along.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
Hi Stephen P. King
I solved this problem my own way by simply asssuming that the universe
from the beginning and before, as well as now and forever,
exists as an infinite collection of points (monads). So no problem
with the creation of new things. In principle they always were
and simply grow
Hi Stephen P. King
No, machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling
facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. So there is no more communication with
God possible
than there would be with an abacus.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Thanks for the correction.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Hi Brian Tenneson
According to Leibniz, there are two kinds of logic, the logic of necessity
or rational logic, and the logic of contingency or of facts.
Reality is contingent, to use Leibniz's idea. Things may be
true sometimes and at some places, but
never everywhere, at all times. It's an a
Hi Bruno Marchal
Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.
I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence
or Cosmnic Mind.
I try not to use that word (God) but sometimes forget.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to
Hi Bruno Marchal
Racism ? How's that implied ?
But I do agree that perception and Cs are
not understandable with materialistic concepts
at least as they are commonly used.
Instead they are what the mind can sense,
as a sixth sense.
The mind is similar to driving a car through
Platoville and
Hi Bruno Marchal
What is always either true or false cannot have been invented,
only discovered. Necessary or rational truths are such.
Contingent truths are not.
Rational or necessary truths are therefore a prioi and can only be discovered.
Contingent truths or facts are therefore a
Hi Bruno Marchal
What is UD ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 15:56:55
On 9/7/2012 7:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that what is necessarily true (rationally true)
had to be always true and thus a priori.
Dear Roger,
But this is just a matter of definition. It remains to be explained
how the necessity is achived and how it is so in
Theres is some duplication in the propositions below which I have not bothered
to clear up, sorry.
1) Mind, being inextended, is outside of the brain, which is extended.
Mind (shared and the general, Platonia) is the subjective realm.
Brain (personal, private, the particular,
On 9/7/2012 8:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I think of the brain as a running sensor of the static platonic world.
Sort of like looking out of the car window as you speed along.
Hi Roger,
How would this be different, from the point of view of the driver, if it
is the Car that
There is a quote by Sherlock Holmes that suggests a way to possibly filter out
solid truth from a comp (?)
List all of the possibilities or possible solutions. Then remove all from that
list
that are impossible (now or ever, I would add). Whatever is left over is the
(rational or necesssary)
On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
Hi Roger,
Brains some years ago had no intellectual or feeling facilities too. It
came by evolution.
Roberto Szabo
2012/9/7 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Stephen P. King
No, machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or
feeling
facilities, are no more than dumb
On 9/7/2012 10:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As I see it, if there is an infinite collection of (monadic) points,
all future things foreseen (as in pre-established harmony)
then nothing new can ever be created or destroyed, things
(including thoughts and people) just blossom
On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its
local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to
time and space,
Even if it
On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or
feeling facilities, are no more than dumb rocks.
Computers may or may not have feelings but that is of no concern to us, if
they don't it's their problem not ours;
On 07.09.2012 13:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of
On 9/7/2012 1:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if
reality is sometimes inconsistent?
Brent,
I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the
(noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'.
While the nouns (IMO) are not adequately identified the adverbs refer to
the applied system of correspondence.
E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:
While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is the
fundamental notion of infinite.
No, the fundamental notion of the infinite is that you can make a one to
one correspondence with a proper
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
up with?
The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are
the number one defender of the Christian's conception of God.
OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists.
Incidentally when I went
On 9/7/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that
atheists are the number one defender of the Christian's conception
of God.
OK I see
On 9/7/2012 2:03 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.09.2012 13:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What
Touche.
But I don't believe (in?) it - I am agnostic. Nonbeliever.
(SONG: I lost my turf in San Francisco)
J
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote (to Craig):
But you
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO computers cannot think, although they can appear to think.
If they could think, they should be able to
b) construct a language that only another computer can understand.
In a sense, this is
An amusing example of computation
--- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120907082027.htm
Towards Computing With Water Droplets: Superhydrophobic Droplet Logic ScienceDaily (Sep.
7, 2012) ? Researchers in Aalto University have developed a new concept for computing,
using water
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or
feeling facilities, are no more than dumb rocks.
Computers may or may not have feelings
On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of modern mathematicians.
In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. Of course they are all
methodological Platonists, but not necessarily philosophical ones.
Brent,
Thanks for your reply.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of modern
mathematicians.
In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division.
52 matches
Mail list logo
