On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> >> A mechanistic world model can still accomodate human (and animal) feeling,
>> >> imagination, creativity and compatibilist free will.
>>
>> > How, specifically?
>>
>> There is no onus on us to answer that question in order to show that
>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Well, you have still not explained how books self-assembly themselves from
> atoms. This is some problem with your reasoning. What Occam's Razor says
> about the creation of books?
Consider a single carbon atom in a book. The atom follows a
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> That's obviously not true. Maybe you just haven't looked at it in a
>> simple enough way. Taking any individual particle in your arm, it can
>> only move in a direction determined by its own physical properties and
>> the forces acting on i
On 9/1/2011 8:02 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 1, 7:52 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/1/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
without reference to a soul, then your analogy is wrong - it is not like a
shadow. If it is like a shadow then it's behavior must differ from that
predicted by
physics and
On Sep 1, 7:52 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> without reference to a soul, then your analogy is wrong - it is not like a
> >> shadow. If it is like a shadow then it's behavior must differ from that
> >> predicted by
> >> physics and chemistry and in spite
On 9/1/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:49 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/1/2011 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Whether or not afferent and efferent nerves are fundamentally
different kinds of cells or just playing different roles in the
nervous system isn't important. If they are th
On Sep 1, 4:49 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> Whether or not afferent and efferent nerves are fundamentally
> >>> different kinds of cells or just playing different roles in the
> >>> nervous system isn't important. If they are the same that only makes a
>
On 9/1/2011 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 1, 3:18 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/1/2011 9:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Whether or not afferent and efferent nerves are fundamentally
different kinds of cells or just playing different roles in the
nervous system isn't important. If they are th
On Sep 1, 3:18 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 9:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Whether or not afferent and efferent nerves are fundamentally
> > different kinds of cells or just playing different roles in the
> > nervous system isn't important. If they are the same that only makes a
> > str
On Sep 1, 2:45 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 11:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 31 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> This is where we disagree. If the wetness or carbonic nature of the
> >> brain plays a r le in our consci
On 01.09.2011 19:57 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Sep 1, 11:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This is where we disagree. If the wetness or carbonic nature of the
brain plays a rôle in our consciousness, this would just mean that
the comp lev
On 9/1/2011 9:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Whether or not afferent and efferent nerves are fundamentally
different kinds of cells or just playing different roles in the
nervous system isn't important. If they are the same that only makes a
stronger case for me, since there would then be no bioche
On 9/1/2011 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 1, 11:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This is where we disagree. If the wetness or carbonic nature of the
brain plays a rôle in our consciousness, this would just mean that the
comp level of subst
On Sep 1, 11:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> This is where we disagree. If the wetness or carbonic nature of the
> brain plays a rôle in our consciousness, this would just mean that the
> comp level of substitution is low, not that it does not e
On Aug 31, 11:17 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> >> A mechanistic world model can still accomodate human (and animal) feeling,
> >> imagination, creativity and compatibilist free will.
>
> > How, specifically?
>
> There is no onus on u
On 01.09.2011 15:00 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
The atoms have to move in order to write the book. They have to
move inside the brain of the author, then his hands have to move,
the keys on the computer keyboard move, and so on.
On Aug 31, 10:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> The subject feels he initiates and has control over the voluntary
> >> movement but not the involuntary movement. That's the difference
> >> between them.
>
> > Ok, now you could understa
Stephen:
2 corrections and a remark to my own text:
#1: I wrote: "*are those "laws' really so true, or only a (statistical)
deduction of data we so far happened to observe?"*
I would add: ...and explained according to THAT level of knowldge...
#2: I really believ that Descartes 'invented' and 'a
On Aug 31, 9:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> But you are saying that the cell will do something impossible, since
> >> you're saying the high level processes may direct it to do something
> >> that cannot be predicted from the physic
On 31 Aug 2011, at 23:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:22 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2011, at 15:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Ok, so how do we know that human awareness is not both a machine
and a
non-machine, and therefore not completely Turing emulable?
On the contrary, w
On 31 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 31, 10:01 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Those are arguments against the comp metaphor, which compare the
brain with man made universal machine, and which is very naïve. Not
against the comp hypothesis which assert the existence of a level
w
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> The atoms have to move in order to write the book. They have to move
>> inside the brain of the author, then his hands have to move, the
>> keys on the computer keyboard move, and so on. Also, things have to
>> happen prior to the book bein
On 01.09.2011 05:14 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
The subject feels he initiates and has control over the
voluntary movement but not the involuntary movement. That's the
difference between them. Both types of movement, however, ar
23 matches
Mail list logo
