On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
>I think
> it's an example of the radiation arrow of time making a time-reversed
> process impossible - or maybe just vanishingly improbable. Bruce Kellet
> has written a paper about these problems, see pp 35.
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/bhkellett/ra
On 25 February 2010 14:46, Charles wrote:
> However, I agree that the statement "evolution has programmed us to
> think of ourselves as a single individual", etc is rather contentious
> as an explanation of why we think this way. It seems to imply that
> there are many other ways we *could* think
On Jan 15, 5:15 pm, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
>
> wrote:
>
> > There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
> > mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
> > individual travelling in the forward dire
I hope you don't mind if I don't quote the entire exchange, which is
now rather long. Unfortunately I only have a short time in which to
reply, as well, so excuse the brevity!
I was under the impression that Price was NOT arguing for any special
kind of retrocausation, but I may have misunderstood
On 24 Feb, 16:09, David Nyman wrote:
> We would seek unambiguous evidence
> that, in the absence of specific subjective 1-p qualitative states,
> certain subsequent 3-p events would be unaccountable without the
> hypothesis of 1-p --> 3-p causal influence.
In the unlikely event that anyone else
Last post didn't show up in email. Seems random.
--- On Tue, 2/23/10, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> -even if there was a one-to-one relationship between distinct computations
> and distinct observer-moments with distinct qualia, very similar computations
> could produce very similar qualia,
Sure. So y
On 24 Feb 2010, at 08:22, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 23 Feb 2010, at 06:45, Rex Allen wrote:
It seems to me that there are two easy ways to get rid of the hard
problem.
1) Get rid of 1-p. (A la Dennettian eliminative materialism)
OR
2)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Roger Penrose also devotes chapter 7 of his book "The Emperor's New Mind"
> to the topic of "Cosmology and the Arrow of Time" (parts of which can be
> viewed at
> http://books.google.com/books?id=DNd2K6mxLpIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA506#v=onepage&q=&f=f
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Charles wrote:
>
>
> The point about amplification is that all normal detection events
> require amplification, such as photographic film, photomultipliers and
> so on. We never detect a quantum event directly, but rather the result
> of that event having caused so
Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
The idea of a material world that exists fundamentally and uncaused
while giving rise to conscious experience is no more coherent than the
idea that conscious experience exists fundamentally and unca
2010/2/23 Diego Caleiro :
Thanks for this. I have to say, though, that Yablo's approach strikes
me again as waving-away, or defining-out-of-existence, a real issue
that doesn't deserve such treatment. The motive for this seems to be
that academic philosophy has become embarrassed by this questio
David,
please, do not put me down as a Schopenhauerist. My "mini-solipsist" views
stem from Colin Hayes' earlier Everything-list posts about "perceived
reality" as we MAY know it.
I condone the existence (?!) of the world I am part of, just restrict
whatever I "CAN" know to the content (and functio
Hi Rex and Members,
There is a very compelling body of work in logic that allows for
circularity. Please take a look at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m06t7w0163945350/
and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonwellfounded-set-theory/
It could make some progress toward the "
On 24 February 2010 07:03, Rex Allen wrote:
> With this in mind, I'm not sure what you mean by "two undeniably
> manifest perpectives." Only ONE seems undeniable to me, and that's
> 1-p.
>
> My proposal is that "seeming" is all there is to reality. It's all
> surface, no depth. However, using
14 matches
Mail list logo
