On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid.
Well OK, but there sure as hell is a lot of free will going around these
days, even a pair of dice can be
Your questions add nothing to the current duscussion and my time is
limited. Please revise your wrong concept of positivism. It is almost thw
opposite of what you think
El 10/08/2012 20:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net escribió:
On 8/10/2012 7:23 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The modern
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
artitificial intelligence,
The question of self. Dennet is here expanded through the use of Leibniz's
monads
as Kant's categories with self as a supercategory logically including all of
Kant's
categories.
Dennet has painted himself into a corner by following the materialistic view of
mind.
The agent or self is a
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Agreed. Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or
feelings, which are qualitative. And intution is non-computable IMHO.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Amen. Well said.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-10, 10:23:24
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
The modern positivist conception of
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
IMHO Intelligence is part of mind, so is platonic and outside of spacetime. It
was there
before the universe was created, used to create the universe and now guides and
moves
everything that happens i9n the unverse. That's a Leibnizian conjecture.
Roger ,
Hi Russell Standish
When I gave in to the AI point of view that computers can posess intelligence,
I had overlooked the world of experience, which is not quantitative. Only
living things can experience the world.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
- Receiving the following content
Hi Stephen P. King
Personally I go with Roger Penrose and his conjecture that, as
I personally understand it, conscious experience is noncomputable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFbrnFzUc0U
Which is not to say that IMHO experience can be understood through
Leibniz's metaphysics of
Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.
This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was
Hi Stephen P. King
Here would be Peter Berger's (The Social Construction of Reality) version:
The meanings of all words are established (invented) pragmatically--through use,
just as our mothers taught us the meanings of words through use,
though conversation.
Thus language is a cultural
Hi meekerdb
Leibniz seems to be the first philosopher (and one of the few) to discuss the
unconscious, which was necessary, since like God (or some Cosmic intelligence),
it is an
integral part of his metaphysical system.
In Leibniz's metaphysics, the lowest or bare naked monads (as in
Positivism seems to rule out native intelligence.
I can't see how knowledge could be created on a blank
slate without intelligence.
Or for that matter, how the incredibly unnatural structure
of the carbon atom could have been created somehow
somewhere by mere chance. Fred Hoyle as I recall
Hi meekerdb
No, the agent is not part of the material world, it is nonmaterial.
It has no extension and so is outside of spacetime.
Mind itself is such (as Descartes observed).
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason need not
On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:45, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Yeah but you can't define what a set is either, so...
The difference, but is there really one?, is that we the notion of set
we can agree on axioms and rules, so that we can discuss independently
on the metaphysical baggage, as you pointed
On 8/11/2012 3:33 AM, Roger wrote:
*The question of self. Dennet is here expanded through the use of Leibniz's
monads*
*as Kant's categories with self as a supercategory logically including all of
Kant's*
*categories.*
Dennet has painted himself into a corner by following the materialistic
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point
which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including
mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts,
you
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
unconscious, and the conscious
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
In both your examples, (dice and roulette wheels), they always do
something stupid (generate a random number).
But you said free will is the ability to do something stupid so both dice
and roulette wheels have free
As I understand it, the Leibniz's rational for advocating the
pre-established harmony idea was Newton's discovery of conservation of
momentum. Descartes knew that energy was conserved, but not momentum.
This would have permitted a non-physical mind to alter the trajectories of
particles in the
Roger,
You say computers are quantitative instruments which cannot have a self or
feelings, but might you be attributing things at the wrong level? For
example, a computer can simulate some particle interactions, a sufficiently
big computer could simulate the behavior of any arbitrarily large
On 8/11/2012 5:13 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Leibniz seems to be the first philosopher (and one of the few) to discuss the
unconscious, which was necessary, since like God (or some Cosmic intelligence),
it is an
integral part of his metaphysical system.
In Leibniz's metaphysics, the lowest or
On 8/11/2012 5:56 AM, Roger wrote:
Positivism seems to rule out native intelligence.
I can't see how knowledge could be created on a blank
slate without intelligence.
Or for that matter, how the incredibly unnatural structure
of the carbon atom could have been created somehow
somewhere by mere
On 8/11/2012 6:00 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
No, the agent is not part of the material world, it is nonmaterial.
It has no extension and so is outside of spacetime.
Mind itself is such (as Descartes observed).
Maybe. But wherever 'the agent' is, it is a non-explanation of agency. If you're
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/11/2012 5:13 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Leibniz seems to be the first philosopher (and one of the few) to discuss
the
unconscious, which was necessary, since like God (or some Cosmic
intelligence), it is an
On 8/11/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
It is plain to me that thoughts can be either
On 8/11/2012 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
So no wonder God wouldn't give his name
God's true name is Bob but He's reluctant for that to become well known because He's
in the Witness Protection
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:10:04PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
In both your examples, (dice and roulette wheels), they always do
something stupid (generate a random number).
But you said free will is the
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:52:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are
conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected.
Bruno
Thanks for this clarification. And to be sure, the split brain example
shows that
On 8/12/2012 1:18 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life
34 matches
Mail list logo
