On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 4:48 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> and have a relatively small number of degrees of freedom.
>
> >> That is nonsense, the entire advantage of Quantum Computers is that
> they have vastly more degrees of freedom than a con
;>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
>>> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
>>> research shows is brain plasticity in in
On 05 Mar 2013, at 19:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:45:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes?
I'm sur
Pierz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm
>> >> sure
>> >> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
>> >> research shows is brain plasticity in interpret
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:45:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz >wrote:
>
>> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
>
On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm
sure the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion.
All the research shows is brain plasticity in interpr
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:39:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
> >>
> >> Really Craig? It invalidates me
Hi Craig,
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>>
>> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
>> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion.
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:43:26 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz >wrote:
>
>> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
>> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion.
On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>
> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
> research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz wrote:
> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
> research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual
> neural p
On 3/4/2013 8:27 PM, Pierz wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure the
researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the research
shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual neural pathways.
How does that inval
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure the
researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the research
shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual neural pathways.
How does that invalidate mechanism?
--
You received
Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
The genie about the reality of sense just doesn't seem to want to stay in
the bottle...
Craig
http://www.newswise.com/articles/ectopic-eyes-function-without-connection-to-brain
*Experiments with tadpoles show ec
Contest by FQXi
http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay
Click Read the contest entries to find it out.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscrib
"If I’ve Googled “diabetes” for a friend or “date rape drugs” for a
mystery I’m writing, data aggregators assume those searches reflect my
own health and proclivities."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/facebook-is-using-you.html
--
You received this message because you are subscr
Le 21-févr.-08, à 15:01, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
> Oh, I am very much proEverett and proDeutsch and, I might add
> proStandish
> (having translated his book Theory of Nothing into swedish). And you
> are
> right of course, it was your assumptions I questioned...
OK, a
Le 21-févr.-08, à 15:01, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
> Oh, I am very much proEverett and proDeutsch and, I might add
> proStandish
> (having translated his book Theory of Nothing into swedish). And you
> are
> right of course, it was your assumptions I questioned...
OK, no prob
I am very much proEverett and proDeutsch and, I might add proStandish
(having translated his book Theory of Nothing into swedish). And you are
right of course, it was your assumptions I questioned...
LN
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message becau
Bruno,
I willbe thrilled: I oogled Plotinus and numbers and
now I lost even that faint idea I had about them.
As for assumptions: you "{assume" that on your
assumptions the position willo be an AMEN.
What i asked is: how about: "I don't assume so" maybe
just t
I'd rather be reading quantum physics, but...
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Corbin"
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Challenging the Basic Assumptions
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:53:34 -0700
>
> aet writes
> > Jesse [writes] > but hey, t
aet writes
> Jesse [writes]
> > but hey, this list is all about rambling speculations about
> > half-formed ideas that probably won't pan out to anything,
> > you could just as easily level the same accusation against
> > anyone here.
Well, a number of us are under the impression that we are bei
22 matches
Mail list logo
