Craig Weinberg wrote:
>No free will = no hunger. No need for it. No mechanism for it. No logic to
> it.
>
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
> That was my point. Knowing how to eat does not require logic or induction.
But your question was "Is it induction that p
Thanks Terren!
Good stuff!
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/9/2012 2:40 PM, terren wrote:
For Stephen and anyone else interested, I asked the following to Steve Grand
regarding the capacity of his Grandroids to do self-modeling:
"Quick question (and forgive me if this has already come up) - do you t
For Stephen and anyone else interested, I asked the following to Steve Grand
regarding the capacity of his Grandroids to do self-modeling:
"Quick question (and forgive me if this has already come up) - do you think
the grandroids will have the capacity for self-modeling? If so, is there
somethin
On Jan 9, 12:56 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or natural
> > law,
>
> If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's true that
> Y can be nothing and thus the exist
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist concept
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
> >> computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
> >> computation, defe
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
computation, defended by Deustch, Landauer, etc. Computations have
been discov
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
> computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
> computation, defended by Deustch, Landauer, etc. Computations have
> been discovered by mathematicians when trying to expalin
On 08 Jan 2012, at 18:03, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
> I don't see any logic or induction in the assertion that the only
possible epistemological sources for Homo sapiens must be logic or
induction.
What other pathway to knowledge do you pr
On 09 Jan 2012, at 06:56, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or
natural law,
If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's
true that Y can be nothing and thus the e
On Dec 22 2011, 12:18 pm, alexalex wrote:
> Hello, Everythinglisters!
>
> The below text is a philosophical essay on what qualia may represent.
> I doubt you'll manage to finish reading it (it's kind of long, and
> translated from anoter language), but if you do I'll be happy to hear
> your opin
11 matches
Mail list logo
