thing-list
Time: 2012-08-15, 04:23:04
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
On 14 Aug 2012, at 18:43, Roger wrote:
Memory may be physical, but the experience of memory is not physical.
memory is not physical. Some memories look physical in some
arithmetical situation
st
Time: 2012-08-15, 04:23:04
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
On 14 Aug 2012, at 18:43, Roger wrote:
Memory may be physical, but the experience of memory is not physical.
memory is not physical. Some memories look physical in some arithmetical
situation. Ke
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 12:00:54
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is not obvious for me, and I ha
Hi Bruno Marchal
Memory may be physical, but the experience of memory is not physical.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 12:00:54
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental resu
On 12 Aug 2012, at 00:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/11/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
I
On 11 Aug 2012, at 01:57, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:36:22AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
But a course of action could be 'selected', i.e. acted upon, without
consciousness (in fact I often do so). I think what constitutes
consciousness is making up a narrative about what is
On 10 Aug 2012, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 7:23 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
We are witnessing this "devolution" since slowly all the old
philosophical and theological concepts will recover their legitimacy,
and all their old problems will stand as problems here and now. For
examp
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:52:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are
> conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected.
>
> Bruno
>
Thanks for this clarification. And to be sure, the split brain example
shows that consco
On 8/11/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
unconscious, and the conscious
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point
which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including
mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts,
you r
On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Amen. Well said.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-10, 10:23:24
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
The modern positivist concepti
Your questions add nothing to the current duscussion and my time is
limited. Please revise your wrong concept of positivism. It is almost thw
opposite of what you think
El 10/08/2012 20:05, "meekerdb" escribió:
> On 8/10/2012 7:23 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> The modern positivist conceptio
On 8/10/2012 4:57 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:36:22AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
But a course of action could be 'selected', i.e. acted upon, without
consciousness (in fact I often do so). I think what constitutes
consciousness is making up a narrative about what is 'sele
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:36:22AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> But a course of action could be 'selected', i.e. acted upon, without
> consciousness (in fact I often do so). I think what constitutes
> consciousness is making up a narrative about what is 'selected'.
Absolutely!
> The evolutionary rea
Hi Russell Standish
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/10/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-10, 08:04:44
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Ma
On 8/10/2012 7:23 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The modern positivist conception of free will has no
scientific meaning. But all modern rephasings of old philosophy are
degraded.
Or appear so because they make clear the deficiencies of the old philosophy.
Positivist philosophy pass everithing
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the
total.
On 8/10/2012 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt
by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in
parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact th
The modern positivist conception of free will has no
scientific meaning. But all modern rephasings of old philosophy are
degraded. Positivist philosophy pass everithing down to what-we-know-by-science
of the physical level, that is the only kind of substance that they
admit. this "what-we-know-by-s
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >
> >It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
> >unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the
> >total.
>
> This is not obvious for m
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:55:03AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/9/2012 12:06 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
IIUC, the delays in question are between when the brain plans
(possibly decides) (the action potential) to do a course of action,
and when
On 07/08/2012, at 11:40 AM, "Stephen P. King" wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html
>
>This is a BFD!
The problem of free will is not a scientific one, it is one of definition.
People continue to argue about it even thou
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:55:03AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 12:06 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >IIUC, the delays in question are between when the brain plans
> >(possibly decides) (the action potential) to do a course of action,
> >and when the mind becomes consciously aware of the dec
On 8/9/2012 12:06 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
IIUC, the delays in question are between when the brain plans
(possibly decides) (the action potential) to do a course of action,
and when the mind becomes consciously aware of the decision.
Why would a several second delay between these two events h
IIUC, the delays in question are between when the brain plans
(possibly decides) (the action potential) to do a course of action,
and when the mind becomes consciously aware of the decision.
Why would a several second delay between these two events have any
implications on the existence or otherwi
Libet's work is really dated. Soon et al, in Nature Neuroscience/ May 2008
report time delays of several seconds. This does require explanation - more
sophisticated measurements that are not so easy to dismiss.
L.W.Sterritt
On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> I never thoug
I never thought it did in the first place.
What is BFD?
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:40:02PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html
>
> This is a BFD!
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be co
29 matches
Mail list logo
