On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I didn't say that. I said "When five billion of them jump to attention at
> once, it is **often** because of something that the person is experiencing
> intentionally,". Biochemistry, among other things, can cause billions of
> neurons to
On Friday, March 15, 2013 12:23:42 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> > A wheel is just [...] a mouse trap does not [...] it doesn't care
>> about [...] it doesn't matter to [...]
>>
>
> This is really getting tedious. Again and
On 14 Mar 2013, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
>
>>> Who are you to say that natural phenomena are superfluou
On Friday, March 15, 2013 6:59:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that. I said "When five billion of them jump to attention
> at
> > once, it is **often** because of something that the person is
> experiencing
>
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2013, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM
On 14 Mar 2013, at 23:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
This is a nice lecture by Johan van Benthem that covers the kind of
approach that I am trying to use in my critique of comp:
http://videolectures.net/esslli2011_benthem_logic/ It gives a nice
alternative to the concept of a u
On 15 Mar 2013, at 04:19, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Because both dragons and God are well defined concepts, just
concepts that don’t happen to have the attribute of existence. In
contrast “free will” is not only incoherently defined it is e
On 3/15/2013 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2013, at 23:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>> This is a nice lecture by Johan van Benthem that covers the kind of
>> approach that I am trying to use in my critique of comp:
>> http://videolectures.net/esslli2011_benthe
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics because he thinks
physics is different from what all those stupid physicists think it is. They just don't
know about his top-down physics, which no one has observed but which he *directly
experiences* and therefore *just knows he
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
> because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
> physicists think it is. They just don't know about his top-down physics,
> which no one has obs
On 3/15/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You're walking down a road and spot a fork in the road far ahead. You know of
advantages and disadvantages to both paths so you arn't sure if you will go right or
left, you haven't finished the calculation yet, you haven't decided yet. Once you get
to
On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
>> because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
>> physicists think it is. They just don't kn
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:28:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> >>
> >> Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
> >> because he thinks physi
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Exactly. It is interesting also in that it seems to be like one of those
> ambiguous images, in that as long as people are focused on one fixed idea
> of reality, they are honestly incapable of seeing any other, even if they
> themselves a
What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
What are the broad physical principles involved? What are we talking about
when we refer to this, and why is it something that can have consequences
considered to be 'serious'?
It w
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:26 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. It is interesting also in that it seems to be like one of those
>> ambiguous images, in that as long as people are focused on one fixed idea
Apparently the legacy view negates free will.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
>
> Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
>
> What are the broad physical principles involved? What are we talking about
No, I think that you haven't understood it, due to whatever biases have led
you to invest so much in your theory - a theory which is AFAICT completely
unfalsifiable and predicts nothing.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:26 PM UTC-4, Ter
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it that
you think that I don't understand? The legacy view is that if you have many
molecular systems working
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>
>
> That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
> that you think that I don't understand? Th
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
>
> Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
>
> What are the broad physical principles involved? What are we talking about
> when we refer to this, and why is it somethi
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our own
> self determination. If you tell me that a system is deterministic you have
> added exactly zero information by telling me that the system also has "free
> will", thus
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I think that you haven't understood it,
>>>
>>
>> That's because you are o
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> > What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
> >
> > Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
> >
> > What are the broad physical princ
On Friday, March 15, 2013 2:06:50 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Apparently the legacy view negates free will.
>
I think it does in many people's minds - or it would if they took their own
beliefs seriously.
Craig
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> > What d
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:18:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal
> > wrote:
>
>> >> No that is the exact opposite of the truth, we cannot follow our own
>> self determination. If you tell me that a system is deterministic you have
>> added exact
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that yo
On Friday, March 15, 2013 5:14:16 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
On
Again the shorcomings of nominamism/positivism. The greeks would laugh at
these questions. It can be explained if we abandon the monomaniatic
reductionistic physicalism and think in terms of just what we are: rational
beings:
I think that the notion of "lost control of something" in an intelligent
On Friday, March 15, 2013 8:16:37 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Again the shorcomings of nominamism/positivism. The greeks would laugh at
> these questions. It can be explained if we abandon the monomaniatic
> reductionistic physicalism and think in terms of just what we are: rational
This has to be my last response on this for a while. I will just say, about
consciousness arising from other premises: It is not the material itself
that is important, but the organization of it. Consciousness *might* be
what happens when certain kinds of organization arise. The human brain
might r
31 matches
Mail list logo
