Lee Corbin wrote:
Jesse writes
> > I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
> > because your brain is a part of an obviously successful
> > survival machine designed by evolution.
>
> Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
> reality is made up of n
sorry for the misaddressing...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aditya Varun Chadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 30, 2005 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
To: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At the risk of barging in once again,
> Since there is nothing specif
Dear Jesse and Lee,
I must interject!
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World
Lee Corbin wrote:
snip
[LC]
The disagreement I have with what you hav
Le 29-juil.-05, à 05:46, Bill Taylor wrote (FOR-LIST)
Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
->I would say theology is even more important.
!!! ???
I will try to explain. The word "theology" has many connotations. The
word is not so important if you understand the idea.
I have favor
Hal Finney wrote:
No doubt this is true. But there are still two somewhat-related problems.
One is, you can go back in time to the first replicator on earth, and
think of its evolution over the ages as a learning process. During this
time it learned this "intuitive physics", i.e. mathematics an
Le 30-juil.-05, à 17:18, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :
I think Mazer has put this across quite nicely, so I pause here.
I agree with you and Jesse Mazer. Except that Jesse points on a
"speculation on the observer-moments", where I find enough to speculate
on the truth on the comp hypothes
Le 29-juil.-05, à 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and
Colin:
If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly
than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary,
but they cannot be discri
Le 30-juil.-05, à 08:53, Lee Corbin a écrit :
When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice
have of the world, we can easily see their limitations.
What would we think of mice who attempted to found all
of reality on "mouse observer moments"?
Give them time! Mice will probably discover
Hi Lee;
Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons
'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails
some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this
definition to know something. Its a little sceptical isnt it?
Aditya writes
> At the risk of barging in once again,
Oh, please forget about all that! No one should apologize for it. Ever.
I (Lee) had written
> > When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice
> > have of the world, we can easily see their limitations.
> > What would we think of mice w
Chris writes
> Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons
> 'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails
> some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this
> definition to know something. Its a little sceptic
Whoa!
A simple question that just opened up SO many things in my mind!
(maybe a few screws too:-) ) Blabber on I shall!
[LC]:
> By "event" do you mean an event that leaves a record? Just
> wondering.
"leaves a record" is the same as saying "affects/causes/interferes
with other events".
Side
Title: Message
AP: Any two deterministic, reversible automata with state space of the
same cardinality are isomorphic, no?
BH: If so, wouldn't that involve an isomorphism whose information
content is potentially the same size as the state space
itself?AP: I am not sure how the info
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:29 AM
> To: Lee Corbin
> Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
>
>
> On 29-Jul-05, you wrote:
>
> > Jesse writes
> >
> >>> I meant that your perceptions have physiological cau
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea
> like Aditya has: what is the real difference between an event
> and an observer-moment? In trying to answer that question, many
> of us may learn something (at least
[RS]
On 7/31/05, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> >
> > This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea
> > like Aditya has: what is the real difference between an event
> > and an observer-moment? In tryi
16 matches
Mail list logo