On Wed, 2 May 2001, jamikes wrote:
> As Dr. Johnson said: the only reality is a stone in my shoe, because it
> hurts.
> Does it really, or do I only think it is?
> John Mikes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes";
... it would really suck if you had a rock in a shoe of a phan
On 5 xxx -1, Marchal wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> >Knowledge is when predicted.
> > If something can be predicted, then that "something" is "knowledge"
> I agree with the second sentence, but I am still uneased with the first.
> Do we know our past ?
On 3 xxx -1, Marchal wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> >Knowledge is when predicted.
> Interesting (?). Could you elaborate a little bit?
> Bruno
Thank you for being interested. Please understand that I do not have a
background in philosophy, logic or computer science, per
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Brent Meeker wrote:
> A true belief that has a casual connection with the fact that makes it
> true.
Knowledge is when predicted.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Michael Rosefield wrote:
> What type of thinking? Please, I don't want to get into a catfight
> here. I'm on this list, presumably, for the same reason you are: to try
> and see the whole picture.
I am happy to say that I found what I was looking for, the rest is just
another
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> A v B A -> B
> > >> 1 1 1 1 1 1
> > >> 1 1 0 1 0 0
> > >> 0 1 1 0 1 1
> > >> 0 0 0 0 1 0
>
> Just to help you guys out, the notation us
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote:
> Scott: that was clearly ill-thought-out. Of course difference does not imply
> time, and of course this e-mail is not proof that there is a 'person' called
> James...
Is this (just) a game to you?
Scott
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote:
> Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is
> unrelated to 'my current' OM. But since all OMs exist I can be sure that
> there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this merde'.
You are James.
Bruno is Bruno.
Why
Saey whaet?
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, John Mikes wrote:
> > Scott
> First: the past tense is objectionable unless the answer is negative (=Yes,
> it didn't).
I don't approach my choice of and use of language by choosing words that
are continuously defendable from a certain perspective. That is,
I am not scienti
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, James Higgo (co.uk) wrote:
> It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I' nonsense -
I thought time didn't exist?
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Higgo James wrote:
> It seems to me that a good way of selecting one idea over is competition is
> Occam's razor
I'm sorry... but just how does Occam's razor support the *verse? It
would seem to me that the *verse/pleni is 100% the opposit
-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
-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
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
First, let me state that I am not a scientist that deals
with this stuff -- so please forgive me if I seem
naive or non-technical... but I have a question:
Why are some people so adament about a "plenitude" or
a "multiverse" ... what proof is there that is so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I'd like to post a quick followup to my own message to the list.
Thank you Fred and Russell for your responses. I think
the issues, for me, are these:
(1) I am now subscribed twice, so I get all messages to the list
twice -- and I receive three copies for tho
-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.
18 matches
Mail list logo
