On 04 Mar 2011, at 01:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:48:38AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So I will be franc. The problem of interaction is not solved at all,
even between third person describable objects. And the problem of
how many first person "really" exist is also
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:48:38AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> So I will be franc. The problem of interaction is not solved at all,
> even between third person describable objects. And the problem of
> how many first person "really" exist is also an open problem,
> although I tend more and mor
Hi Evgenii,
On 04 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for answers. As usual, they are very enjoyable.
From my side I can offer nothing more. I guess that at the moment my
point of view is some eclectic mixture, basically I am just
collecting different ideas and the
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for answers. As usual, they are very enjoyable.
From my side I can offer nothing more. I guess that at the moment my
point of view is some eclectic mixture, basically I am just collecting
different ideas and theories.
I should say that some long time ago I used to have Intro
Hi Evgenii,
I understand how the hypothetico-deductive way is working and I am
amazed by expressions in mathematical logic. Yet, sometimes it is
not bad to start from the end, this might also help.
I agree. The amazing thing is that if we start from the end, we
get ... Plotinus or Ploti
I understand how the hypothetico-deductive way is working and I am
amazed by expressions in mathematical logic. Yet, sometimes it is not
bad to start from the end, this might also help. Say I do not understand
how many first persons views are allowed in your theory and if this
number is more th
Dear Evgenii,
Thanks a lot for your answers. I am not sure though if I agree/
understand them. Well, I have to think it over.
You are welcome. You can ask any question. My point is that what I say
is a consequence of taking the comp hypothesis seriously into account.
We don't know the tr
Dear Bruno,
Thanks a lot for your answers. I am not sure though if I
agree/understand them. Well, I have to think it over.
Your position somewhat reminds me that of Erwin Schrödinger in Mind and
Matter. A few quotes from Chapter 4: The Arithmetical Paradox: The
Oneness of Mind.
"The reason
Dear Dick,
On 23 Feb 2011, at 21:29, Dick Gordon wrote:
Dear Evgenii & Bruno,
Half tongue in cheek, in:
Tuszynski, J.A. & R. Gordon (2008). A mean field Ising model for
cortical rotation in amphibian one cell stage embryos. In. Eds.
Toronto, Society for Mathematical Biology Conference, July 30
Dear Evgenii & Bruno,
Half tongue in cheek, in:
Tuszynski, J.A. & R. Gordon (2008). A mean field Ising model for
cortical rotation in amphibian one cell stage embryos. In. Eds.
Toronto, Society for Mathematical Biology Conference, July 30 - August
2, 2008.
I used the following reasoning:
IF micr
On 22 Feb 2011, at 19:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Thank you for your answers. I have still a coupled of questions.
> But with computer science, intuition can be misleading.
Intuition could be misleading not only in computer science. I know.
>> Moreover my first person view assumes that there a
Thank you for your answers. I have still a coupled of questions.
> But with computer science, intuition can be misleading.
Intuition could be misleading not only in computer science. I know.
>> Moreover my first person view assumes that there are some others
>> first person views, for example,
On 21 Feb 2011, at 21:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Thank you for your answer. I am also sorry for confusion as with
"What mind-body research says about the development of mind from a
single cell and then its death?"
I have meant
"What mind-body research says about the development of mind fro
Thank you for your answer. I am also sorry for confusion as with
"What mind-body research says about the development of mind from a
single cell and then its death?"
I have meant
"What mind-body research says about the development of mind from a
single cell and then the death of mind?"
So i
ruary 20, 2011 4:16 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How embryogenesis fits in the mind-body problem?
On 20 Feb 2011, at 19:46, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Embryogenesis concerns a multicellular organism
Obviously. But you ask for the *mind* of cells, which are unicellular,
(
On 20 Feb 2011, at 19:46, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Embryogenesis concerns a multicellular organism
Obviously. But you ask for the *mind* of cells, which are unicellular,
(although I like currently to see them as bacteria (+ a virus)
occupying a sort of house).
http://en.wik
Dear Bruno,
Embryogenesis concerns a multicellular organism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis
I am not sure if one can speak of embryogenesis of amoeba or bacteria.
So my question was actually about human being. I believe that I was
conceived by fertilization the ovum in my mother by
On 19 Feb 2011, at 22:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A bit off topic question. How embryogenesis fits comp, digital
physics, ALG, and other diverse points of view expressed here? What
mind-body research says about the development of mind from a single
cell and then its death?
Embryogenesis fi
A bit off topic question. How embryogenesis fits comp, digital physics,
ALG, and other diverse points of view expressed here? What mind-body
research says about the development of mind from a single cell and then
its death?
Evgenii
P.S. By the way, in Second Life there is course where Prof Go
19 matches
Mail list logo
