On 01 May 2009, at 08:53, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct
> theology?
Ah ah, I see that you want to provoke me :)
Hard to say, I am discovering that many atheist websites adopt a new
definition of atheism, making it a form of agnostic
On 01 May 2009, at 19:36, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> I found a paper on the Mandelbrot set and computability, I
> understand very little but maybe Bruno would be able to follow it:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CC/0604003
>
> The same author has a shorter outline or slides for a presentation
> on t
On 01 May 2009, at 17:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> 2009/5/1 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>> That is, you can't say that the rock
>>> implements one computation but not another.
>>
>> I don't think it implements any computations. I could accept some
>> tiny
>> apparition of tiny pieces of of tiny a
On 30 Apr 2009, at 19:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2009, at 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>Marchal wrote
>> That is weird.
>>
>> I think that you believe that a rock implements computations, because
>> you believe a computation can be decomposed in tiny com
On 30 Apr 2009, at 18:29, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 29 Apr 2009, at 23:30, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> But I'm not convinced that the basic Olympia machine he describes
> doesn't already have a complex causal structure--the causal
> structure would be in the way different t
On Apr 29, 2:26 am, russell standish wrote:
>
> What extra information do you have in mind? I'd gladly update my
> priors with anything I can lay my hands on.
So changes to neural structure and the concentrations of various
chemicals within neurons and around neural synapses is known to change
c
6 matches
Mail list logo
