> On 5 Feb 2020, at 16:25, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> REALITY.S
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:22:21 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:00:51 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 4:50:27 AM UTC-
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:00:51 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 4:50:27 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:25:42 PM UTC-6,
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 4:50:27 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:25:42 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 4:50:27 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:25:42 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:25:42 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 4:50:36 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/2020 2:12 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 4:01:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/2020 7:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00
On 2/5/2020 2:12 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 4:01:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 2/5/2020 7:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 4:01:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/2020 7:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
On 2/5/2020 7:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:40:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/2020 4:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>
> quantumetric compute
On 2/5/2020 4:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
John K Clark
quantumetric computer
The idea basically is to combine
• quantum computer
• relativistic computer
e.g. h
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UT
, Feb 5, 2020 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Reality is a Quantumetric Computer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
REALIT
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
>>>
>>>
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>
> quantumetric computer
>
> The idea basically is to combine
>
> •
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
>
> John K Clark
>
>
quantumetric computer
The idea basically is to combine
• quantum computer
• relativistic computer
e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.
@philipthrift
REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
On 06 Dec 2013, at 02:21, LizR wrote:
On 6 December 2013 14:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's
monad
Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is
simply
physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and n
On 06 Dec 2013, at 02:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's
monad
Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is
simply
physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now
Heidegger
shows that materialism a
On 6 December 2013 14:15, Roger Clough wrote:
> Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
>
> Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply
> physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger
> shows that materialism
---
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-23, 14:41:13
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 23 Nov 2012, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal,
I find this statement on http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mmk/papers/05-KI.html
:
".
e end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-23, 14:41:13
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 23 Nov 2012, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal,
I find this
rever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-21, 12:23:40
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 21 Nov 2012, at 11:32, Roger Clough w
, [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/22/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-21, 12:23:40
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Aud
-Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-21, 12:23:40
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 21 Nov 2012, at 11:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm trying to und
's theorems, which I might explain someday.
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/21/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-20, 10
e end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-20, 10:05:13
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 20 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Sorry, where ar
/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-19, 09:33:19
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 19 Nov 2012, at 11:22, Rog
On 19 Nov 2012, at 20:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/11/19 meekerdb
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog
observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
Because the material reality is the sum of the infinity of
comp
On 19 Nov 2012, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog
observable.
How does it show that?
Intuitively: by dovetailing on each programs coupled with real
numbers. Each computations are done
, 09:33:19
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 19 Nov 2012, at 11:22, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I thought that comp is exactly opposite to what you say,
that computationalism is the belief that we can simulate
the mind with a computer program-- tha
2012/11/19 meekerdb
> On 11/19/2012 1:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2012/11/19 meekerdb
>
>> On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog
>> observable.
>>
>>
>> How does it show that?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Because the
On 11/19/2012 1:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/11/19 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
Because the material reali
2012/11/19 meekerdb
> On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog
> observable.
>
>
> How does it show that?
>
> Brent
>
Because the material reality is the sum of the infinity of computations
going through your current state.
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to eve
ot; -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-18, 07:46:20
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 17 Nov 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
>
>
> Original Message
&
e end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-18, 07:46:20
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]
On 17 Nov 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
>
>
> --
On 17 Nov 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
Original Message
More In This Article
*Overview
_Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?_
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all
)
Conventional wisdom says that quantum mech
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Stephen P. King
> wrote:
>> On 11/8/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> The compact manifolds, what I call string theory monads, are more
>>> fundamental than strings. Strings with spin, charge a
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> The compact manifolds, what I call string theory monads, are more
>> fundamental than strings. Strings with spin, charge and mass, as well
>> as spacetime, emerge from the compact manifold
On 11/8/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The compact manifolds, what I call string theory monads, are more
fundamental than strings. Strings with spin, charge and mass, as well
as spacetime, emerge from the compact manifolds, perhaps in the manner
that you indicate below.
Hi Richard,
On 05 Sep 2012, at 19:24, Roger Clough wrote:
Leibniz, my mentor, believed that reality (being mental)
consists of an infinite collection of (inextended)
mathematical points called monads.
These can never be created or destroyed.
Like the numbers. Note this, the numbers 1, 2, 3 in front of
I thought I would add the paper:Temporal Platonic
Metaphysics:arxiv.org:0903.18001v1
On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, ronaldheld wrote:
> Not certain what thread this belongs in so I started up a new one.
> arxiv.org:0903.1193v1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
x27;reductionism' the view of a limited part (model as I call it) of the
totality, maybe 'all of we know, or can imagine' from the unlimited
possibilities. I don't use it pejoratively. This is the way how we can think
(or understand) in our restricted capabilities. I try to step fu
Hi Tom,
On 27 Dec 2008, at 22:50, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Just coming at this after not thinking about it much.
Good method :)
> Sometimes
> that's an advantage, but sometimes it results in forgetting pertinent
> points that were understood before.
As a math teacher, I know perfec
Bruno,
Just coming at this after not thinking about it much. Sometimes
that's an advantage, but sometimes it results in forgetting pertinent
points that were understood before. So if it's the latter, I hope you
forgive me.
Taking two of your statements and trying to synthesize them, first
this
it is an openness of our mind toward a peculiar Unknown
which invites itself to our table.
Bruno
> - Original Message -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> Sent
with a
> reality of numbers. But if it's the only game in town, I can live with it.
> Season's Best,
>
>
>
> marty a.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> *From:* Bruno Marchal
> *To:* everythin
son's Best,
marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 11:11 AM
Subject: Re:
M.A.,
On 20 Dec 2008, at 15:21, M.A. wrote:
> Bruno,
> Does the term "reality" have any meaning in MEC?
>
> m
> .a.
What makes you think the term "reality" has no meaning
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> COL
> >> Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest
> of
> >> scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor. connect
> us.
> >
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
COL
>> Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest
of
>> scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor. connect
us.
>
LZ
> It depends what you , mean by "connect"
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> >
> > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >> >> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through
> >> being
> >> >> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
> >> >
> >> > Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
> >>
> >> Yes. But th
>
>
> Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> >> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through
>> being
>> >> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
>> >
>> > Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
>>
>> Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through being
> >> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
> >
> > Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
>
> Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments do is extend
>
>> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through being
>> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
>
> Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments do is extend
the causal chain between your phenomenali
Colin Hales wrote:
> 1Z
> >
> > Colin Hales wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND
> > > > EXISTED. So far
> > > > the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
> > > >
> > > > Brent Meeker
> > > >
> > >
> > > FIRSTLY
> > > Form
1Z
>
> Colin Hales wrote:
> > >
> > > So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND
> > > EXISTED. So far
> > > the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
> > >
> > > Brent Meeker
> > >
> >
> > FIRSTLY
> > Formally we would investigate new physics of unde
Colin Hales wrote:
> >
> > So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND
> > EXISTED. So far
> > the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
> >
> > Brent Meeker
> >
>
> FIRSTLY
> Formally we would investigate new physics of underlying reality such as
> th
Colin Hales wrote:
> 1Z
>
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:19 AM
> > > >> > Brent Meeker
> > > >> It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would
> > > behave exactly as they do behave,
> > > >> most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any
> >
--- Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(among a lot other things, quoted and replied to):
>I disagree and can show empirical proof that we
scientists only THINK we are not being solipsistic.<
I wrote in this sense lately (for the past say 40
years) but now I tend to change my solipsistic m
>
> So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND
> EXISTED. So far
> the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
FIRSTLY
Formally we would investigate new physics of underlying reality such as
this:
--
Colin Hales wrote:
>
>
> 1Z
>
>
>>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:19 AM
>>
>>Brent Meeker
>
>It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would
>>>
>>>behave exactly as they do behave,
>>>
>most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world a
1Z
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:19 AM
> > >> > Brent Meeker
> > >> It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would
> > behave exactly as they do behave,
> > >> most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any
> > consideration at all, the rest d
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 12:11:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my narrative for a substitute Big Bang I called the originating
> zero-info-'object' Plenitude, as I realize from your words (thank you) it is
> close to the Old Greek Chaos. In that narrative Universes occur by
> 'differentia
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 03:23:44PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 23-sept.-06, 07:01, Russell Standish a crit :
>
>
> > Anything provable by a finite set of axioms is necessarily a finite
> > string of
> > symbols, and can be found as a subset of my Nothing.
>
>
> You told us that
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 08:05:14AM -0700, 1Z wrote:
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > The Nothing itself does not have any properties in itself to speak
> > of. Rather it is the PROJECTION postulate that means we can treat it
> > as the set of all strings, from which any conscious viewpoint must
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> Brent meeker writes:
> >> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> > > John,
> >> > >
> >> > > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all
> >> under the impression that everything is a
> >> > > construction of his
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
> (upon Bruno's question)...
>To be more precise, I identify Nothing with
> undiffe
Russell Standish wrote:
> The Nothing itself does not have any properties in itself to speak
> of. Rather it is the PROJECTION postulate that means we can treat it
> as the set of all strings, from which any conscious viewpoint must
> correspond to a subset of strings.
That sounds rather like th
del view.
But we all pretend to be smart liars.
*
Your last paragraph paved my way to the nuthouse.
Thanks
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature o
Le 23-sept.-06, 07:01, Russell Standish a crit :
> Anything provable by a finite set of axioms is necessarily a finite
> string of
> symbols, and can be found as a subset of my Nothing.
You told us that your Nothing contains all strings. So it contains all
formula as "theorems". But a th
Peter Jones writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Brent meeker writes:
> >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under
> > > > the impression that everything is a
> > > > construction of his own mind. Pe
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 03:26:21PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Please allows me at this stage to be the most precise as possible. From
> a logical point of view, your theory of Nothing is equivalent to
> Q1 + Q2 + Q3. It is a very weaker subtheory of RA. It is not sigma1
> complete, you don
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Brent meeker writes:
>> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> > > John,
>> > >
>> > > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all
>> under the impression that everything is a
>> > > construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief i
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent meeker writes:
>
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under
> > > the impression that everything is a
> > > construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in or
Le 22-sept.-06, à 19:18, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>
>> It is really the key to understand that if my 3-person I is a machine,
>> then the I, (the 1-person I) is not! This can be used to explain why
>> the 1-person is
Le 22-sept.-06, à 19:10, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> Any person's experience is obtained by
>>> differentiating - selecting something from that "nothing".
>>>
>>> The relationship between this zero information object, and
>
> real world. From Hitler to a nun.
> I was not thinking on the "intermittent solips" as pointed to by some
> (reasonable) list-colleagues.
> John
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sen
Brent meeker writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the
> > impression that everything is a
> > construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order
> > to indulge in fiction or compute
to a nun.
I was not thinking on the "intermittent solips" as pointed to by some
(reasonable) list-colleagues.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: Reality, the bogus n
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
>
> It is really the key to understand that if my 3-person I is a machine,
> then the I, (the 1-person I) is not! This can be used to explain why
> the 1-person is solipsist, although the 1-person does not need to be
> doctri
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > Any person's experience is obtained by
> > differentiating - selecting something from that "nothing".
> >
> > The relationship between this zero information object, and
> > arithmetical platonia is a bit unclear, but I would say
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> John,
>
> Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the
> impression that everything is a
> construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order to
> indulge in fiction or computer
> games, and a solipsist may beli
OTECTED]
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:51:28 -0400
>
>
> Stathis:
> wouod a "real" solipsist even talk to you?
> John M
> - Original Message -
> From: "Sta
Le 22-sept.-06, à 08:16, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Russell, when you say "nothing external exist", do you mean "nothing
>> primitively material" exist, or do you mean there is no independent
>> reality at all, not even an
Le 20-sept.-06, à 21:06, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Le 20-sept.-06, à 14:08, 1Z a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> This isn't the only way COMP couldbe false. For instance, if
>>> matter exists, consciousness could be dependent on it. Thus,
>>> while the existence of matter might dis
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Russell, when you say "nothing external exist", do you mean "nothing
> primitively material" exist, or do you mean there is no independent
> reality at all, not even an immaterial one? (I ordered your book but I
> am still wai
Russell Standish wrote:
> It makes absolute sense to me, and it is really one of the central
> themes of my book "Theory of Nothing". The only points of view are
> interior ones, because what is external is just "nothing".
>
> But I know that Colin comes from a different ontological bias, since
>
About solipsism I think it is useful to distinguish:
- the (ridiculous) *doctrine* of solipsism. It says that I exist and
you don't.
- the quasi trivial fact that any pure first person view is
solipsistic. This makes the doctrine of solipsism non refutable, and
thus non scientific in Popper
]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
>
> Colin Hales wrote:
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED
Stathis:
wouod a "real" solipsist even talk to you?
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bruno Marchal"
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing te
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:36:00AM -, David Nyman wrote:
>
> I think we will never be able to engage with the issues you describe
> until we realise that what we are faced with is a view from the inside
> of a situation that has no outside. Our characterisation of 'what
> exists' as 'outside'
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> This paradoxical situation I have analysed out and, I hope, straightened
> out. The answer lies not in adopting/rejecting solipsism per se (although
> solipsism is logically untenable for subtle reasons) , but in merely
> recognising what scientific evidence is actua
Peter,
I am afraid we are in a loop. I have already answer most of your
comments, except this one:
>
>> Again, from a strictly logical point
>
> As opposed to ?
As opposed to the common sense needed for the choice of the axioms of
the (logical) theory.
To be sure I have not yet commented an
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:52 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing
Colin Hales wrote:
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
>>Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:31 AM
>>To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>Sub
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:31 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing te
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Bruno Marchal writes:
>
>
>>About solipsism I am not sure why you introduce the subject. It seems
>>to me nobody defend it in the list.
>
>
> Is anyone out there really a solipsist? Has anyone ever met or talked to a
> real solipsist?
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
Wi
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
