On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly
I agree that there is in a sense something mysterious about consciousness,
but I think that assembling a human being out of the appropriate chemicals
would necessarily reproduce this mysterious element as well. I also believe
that a human with a computer analogue of a brain would be conscious,
Le 11-mars-07, à 09:40, Tom Caylor wrote in part:
Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that
the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and
says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just
say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:59, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Modern science is
only in the left side of the brain of humanity.
Unlike greek science, if you look carefully.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
Tom, is it not a simple fact, surely, that *meaning*, for a creature
with the wherewithal to worry about it, is fundamentally the recognition
of relationships amongst the creatures and things perceived in the
world, including oneself, and relating these to oneself?
Regards
Mark Peaty
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
the stuff in the Plenitude is useless
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody
bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the
plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the
meaning of possible for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS)
only part of the plenitude.
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the
plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the
meaning of possible for now),
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:54:44PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody
bigger that you or I ;) has
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and
On Mar 2, 9:11 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking
On Mar 5, 4:41 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude,
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He
basically would be in charge of the evolution of
On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and
18 matches
Mail list logo
