On 30 Nov 2013, at 13:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Russell's abandonment of Leibniz's platonism after his conversion to
the cult of materialism.
Neither Bertrand Russell, nor Wittgenstein, understood Gödel's
incompleteness theorem.
Three related definitions of consciousness not possible
On 30 Nov 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote:
Berkeley and Leibniz- where the monads came from
In Berkeley's philosophy of idealism, a subject is needed
to perceive objects, otherwise they could not exist.
Leibniz got around the problem of what happens if
nobody's there (a tree falls in a
Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two
Dennett never tells us what conscilousness is, because
conciouness rwequires a perceiver, and he hasn't a clue as to what that is,
because that concept is foreign to his materialism.
He's clueless. And famous as well maybe because with
Steven Pinker, at the end of How the mind works present a number of
evolutionary and cognitive explanations of the mind in terms of brain
processes . But at the end then comes the hard question: Why we are
conscious and not unconscious robots?. Pinker end up saying that in the
same way that a
I have a different history:
Really the modern rejection of Idealism comes from the defeat of the latter
incarnation of the ldealists: The Hegelianists, both Nazis and Comunists.
The dialectical materialists Marxists were idealists against idealism, but
idealists at last. That defeat happened
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An,
Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares,
On 11/30/2013 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Nov 2013, at 23:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/29/2013 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/28/2013 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/27/2013 7:03 AM,
On 11/30/2013 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact, materialism cannot explain matter, either. Worst, it avoids trying to explain
it at the start.
It's not worse, it's logic. Whatever is taken as fundamental in a theory is not something
explained in the theory. Your theory takes numbers
On 11/30/2013 8:57 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Steven Pinker, at the end of How the mind works present a number of evolutionary and
cognitive explanations of the mind in terms of brain processes . But at the end then
comes the hard question: Why we are conscious and not unconscious robots?.
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch,
Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari,
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/30/2013 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact, materialism cannot explain matter, either. Worst, it avoids
trying to explain it at the start.
It's not worse, it's logic. Whatever is taken as fundamental in a
On 11/30/2013 7:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/30/2013 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact, materialism cannot explain matter, either. Worst, it avoids trying
to
explain it
We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just
because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not
intellectual dishonesty?
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM,
I grew up with my creators.
Richard
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote:
We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just
because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not
intellectual dishonesty?
Samiya
On 29 Nov 2013, at 07:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the
myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet,
the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about
everything, the more difficult it is to believe
On 29 Nov 2013, at 21:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 29-Nov-2013, at 10:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Nov 2013, at 15:29, Samiya Illias wrote:
Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek
(neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the
abramanic
On 29 Nov 2013, at 22:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/29/2013 2:09 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Yes, I know we cannot answer that, but that is due to our lack of
knowledge and comprehension of God, and not because God is useless
or does not exist. God's presence is perceivable through His
On 29 Nov 2013, at 23:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/29/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Nov 2013, at 00:58, LizR wrote:
On 29 November 2013 03:29, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek
(neo)platonists. They did invented the
Berkeley and Leibniz- where the monads came from
In Berkeley's philosophy of idealism, a subject is needed
to perceive objects, otherwise they could not exist.
Leibniz got around the problem of what happens if
nobody's there (a tree falls in a wood...)
by dividing up the world into physical
On 29 Nov 2013, at 23:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/29/2013 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/28/2013 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/27/2013 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:56,
Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
Two related definitions of consciousness are:
1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular.
2. Consciousness is self-referential awareness.
So consciousness requires that there be a self,
or first person singular, to be aware.
On 30 Nov 2013, at 12:53, Roger Clough wrote:
Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
Two related definitions of consciousness are:
1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular.
2. Consciousness is self-referential awareness.
So consciousness requires that there be
Russell's abandonment of Leibniz's platonism after his conversion to the cult
of materialism.
Three related definitions of consciousness not possible in materialism or
analytic philosophy:
1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular.
2. Consciousness is self-referential
23 matches
Mail list logo
