On 26 Jan 2011, at 11:31, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My point is only that IF we accept digital mechanism THEN the
*appearance* of movement is an inside, first person, construction,
due to the gap between what a machine (number) can
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> My point is only that IF we accept digital mechanism THEN the
> *appearance* of movement is an inside, first person, construction,
> due to the gap between what a machine (number) can prove and what is
> true.
>
It is interesting
Hi John,
On 23 Jan 2011, at 18:20, John Mikes wrote:
Right on and Onward - Stephen,
that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed "inside" our
mind.
On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about 'wave as the
FORM of energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked man
Hi John,
Umm, maybe the mind is like a Moebius strip? I would very much like to read
your paper! Got a link?
Onward!
Stephen
From: John Mikes
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011
Right on and Onward
Right on and Onward - Stephen,
that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed "inside" our mind.
On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about '*wave* as the FORM of
energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked many physicists (and
the best answer was: "Good question") WHAT
Nice to hear from you John, I hope you will feel well. Happy 2011!
Bruno
On 22 Jan 2011, at 14:19, John Mikes wrote:
(Including Stephens initiation of course).
After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to
the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones
Hi John,
Sorry to hear about your 2010. I hope that 2011 allows your flavour of
feist to resume here on 'everything'.
I am at the very end of my PhD writeup and have been more flaky than
usual here. I was amused to see that I appeared to be advocating any
sort of XYXism or to be an 'XYZist'.
Hi John!
"No outside view" That is the point that I was trying to make from the
start. This is why I keep repeating that Numerical Idealism is an insufficient
theory of everything; there cannot be an "outside" that acts to distinguish
numbers from each other! An interesting discussion o
John
Good to see you back - I wish you better health in 2011.
David
On 22 January 2011 13:19, John Mikes wrote:
> (Including Stephens initiation of course).
> After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to
> the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones.
>
9 matches
Mail list logo
