On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:45:43PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
OK, so by necessary primitive, you mean the syntactic or microscopic
layer. But take this away, and you no longer have emergence. See
endless discussions on emergence - my paper, or Jochen Fromm's book for
instance. Does this
You could look up Murmurs in the Cathedral, Daniel Dennett's review
of Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, in the Times literary
supplement (and maybe online somewhere?)
Here's an excerpt from a review of the review:
--
However, Penrose's main thesis, for which all this scientific
On Jun 19, 12:31 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interaction is in terms of fields - electromagnetic for most of our
everyday examples. The fields themselves are emergent effects from
virtual boson exchange. Now how is this related to sensing exactly?
(Other than sensing being
DN: '
I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
a 'modulated
David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 19, 12:31 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interaction is in terms of fields - electromagnetic for most of our
everyday examples. The fields themselves are emergent effects from
virtual boson exchange. Now how is this related to sensing exactly?
David wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun 21, 2007 2:31 PM
David, you are still too mild IMO. You wrote:
... there is a mathematical formalism in which interaction is modelled in
terms of 'fields'.
I would say: we call 'fields' what seems to be callable 'interaction' upon
the outcome of certain
On Jun 21, 8:24 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like the sign is already up and it reads, Participatorily intuit the
magic of the de-formalized ding an sich.
I'd be happy with that sign, if you substituted a phrase like 'way of
being' for 'magic'. There is no analogy between
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the
On Jun 21, 8:42 pm, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, you are still too mild IMO.
I try not to be churlish.
I like your quest for de-formalized participants (like e.g. energy?)
Not sure - can you say more?
The 'matches' are considered WITHIN the aspects included into the model,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:44:54PM -, David Nyman wrote:
There is no analogy between the two cases, because
Russell seeks to pull the entire 1-person rabbit, complete with 'way
of being', out of a hat that contains only 3-person formalisations.
This is magic with a vengeance.
You assume
On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to
bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
about at the moment. I will often employ counterexamples simply to
illustrate points
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:22:31AM -, David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to
bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
about at the
14 matches
Mail list logo
