-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jacques Mallah wrote:
> Another way to go is to consider an implementation
> of a computation, extended over time, as "you". You
> can't tell which implementation you are just from the
> available information in an observer-moment.
I
--- Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the ideas Bruno, Jacques and I put forward are
> idealist.
My view is that math is fundamental. Ideas should
be derivable from the math of computations. The
physical world is real in that it is mathematical.
=
- - - - - - -
- Original Message -
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 13 May 2000 20:35
Subject: Re: this very moment
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sat, 13 May 2000, Alastair Malco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 xxx -1, Marchal wrote:
> Then you can, in fact you must, reduce the mind-body problem into the
> problem of why machines believes in laws, matter and universe.
This is all that I am interested in. To me, it doesn't matter if there
is one universe, no u
Fabien Besnard wrote:
>I surely am [materialist], as anyone should be when dealing about a
> scientific subject.
This is a rather dogmatic assertion. See my posts, or my thesis* for a
proof
that computationnalism entails materialism contradict very weak form
of Occam.
Bruno
* which you can do
>From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: this very moment
>Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:26:35 +0100
>
>Jacques is right: there is no first person, so the distinction is spurious.
>
- Original Message -
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Brent Meeker wrote:
> This seems like a very extravagant claim. In what sense does an idea exist if
> no one has it. And what is an "idea" anyway - a thought, something that can be
> expressed by a declarative sentence. If the latter, the
-Message d'origine-
De : Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : jeudi 11 mai 2000 10:37
Objet : RE: this very moment
>You're missing the point:
this is quite possible, for I often don't understand m
Dear Scott,
I answer to your questions, no there is no moderation of this
list. There used to be more than 3-5 people active on this list, but I
guess a number of people got busy, and are off doing other
things. There have been some great ideas raised and discussed on this
list in the past
9 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: this very moment
>
> Jacques Mallah wrote:
> >
> > --- Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There needs to be psychological time in which to
> > > unravel th
Jacques Mallah wrote:
>
> --- Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There needs to be psychological time in which to
> > unravel the history embedded in a single observer
> > moment. Once one has psychological time, one may as
> > well go the whole hog and have a complete history,
> > w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Higgo James wrote:
> 'Psychological time' is a concept of time, part of your current psychology.
> Occam would disapprove of assuming that psychological events are real
> events; assuming a hard, physical world when there is no need for one.
13 matches
Mail list logo
