On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:27:18 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 12:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 4,
Hi Stephen P. King
There was only one Big Bang, at least this time around,
because they have been able to measure it happening
about 19 billion years ago. There are otgher measurments
such as the background radiation that tell us more about it.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the f
Hi Craig Weinberg
I obviously misunderstood your point.
I still don't.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: eve
Hi Jason Resch
There's no ontological difference between a computer
and an abacus.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Rece
Hi John Clark
God is real but cannot be found within spacetime because
he is unextended. So scientific talk about God is meaningless.
Actually, all science talk is meaningless if it is scientific.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to i
Hi Jason Resch
Sorry. What needs explanation ?
Or is that even the right question ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Re
Hi John Clark
Apparently you fear you will not be able to tell which is true--
and in what cases-- 17th cent philosophical statements or modern science.
As a rule of thumb you might be skeptical about some statements of
17th century philosophers on science. But in some other cases one of them is
Hi John Clark
"There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler
and people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both
excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me
either, much less infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood
Hi Richard,
It occurred to me after I sent the previous that only
the Supreme monad can perceive becaise the rest of them
can't (they have no windows) yet their "perceptioons"
are continually being updated.
I don't usually think in terms of particular monadology statements,
Leibniz is perfectly
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
> > It is the meat of the
> > comp assumption, and spelling it out this way makes it very
> > explicit. Either you agree you can be copied (without feel
Hi Richard Ruquist
Capitalism is not a form of morality unless you consider
expanding the wealth of an entire nation to be moral.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the f
Roger,
That is exactly my point: if "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country." export jobs overseas and hide their money there as well,
they are immoral.
Richard
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Capitalism is not a form of morality u
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Hi Russel,
>
> In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
> matter of contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real! That is the
> entire point of Reality. It is not up to the choice of any one. It
> is
Hi Craig Weinberg
Speaking of teleportation, if that means time travel, I find it strangely
comforting that my parents
are actually, really alive back there in 1950. So in effect, you never
die, you just get time-shifted.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there
Hi Craig Weinberg
IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and
have intelligence lies on the scientists.
I see no evidence of life or real intelligence
in computers.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that
Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly. There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant),
I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that- when I look out
of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
of course weird. Or that t
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is irrelevant
>> to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple posts what your
>> position is on how much of your brain function could be replaced by an
>> appropriate machi
Hi Craig Weinberg
Lord of the Flies is basically the conservative view put forth by Hobbes (and
Paul).
At root we are criminals.
Welfare is essentially the leftist view put forth by Rousseau.
At root we are saints.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If th
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't like the word "existence" as it carries
so much baggage with it. What you describe
below is physical existence. That is a property
of extended entities.
Inextended entities such as mind and 1p and
thouights and feelings would be mentally
existent.
Roger Clough, rclo
Hi Jason Resch
What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
On 04 Sep 2012, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
According to Leibniz there is only one live perceiver, and that
he calls the Supreme Monad. Actually, not the monad itself,
but what sees through the monad.Then when we see individually
we must see through that one eye. I believe i
On 04 Sep 2012, at 16:49, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO God is the All, or better said, the uncreated intelligence
behind all
creation.
With the comp assumption, this sentence makes clear that Arithmetical
Truth, a strongly non computational reality, and which is uncreated
On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live,
I don't
see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningfu
On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:09, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley
Seems funny that Turing “…assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers…” given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.
Not really infinite but it has no boundaries, it can always extend
if n
On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough wrote:
> God created the human race.
And when God asks Himself the question "Why have I always existed,
why haven't I always not existed?" what answer in his omniscience
does He come up with?
The neoplatonis
On 04 Sep 2012, at 21:47, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.
A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine
functions, it
can react dynamically to the bra
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:45 AM, "Roger Clough" wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal
world.
Where did I use the term virtual world?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
On 04 Sep 2012, at 22:40, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has
succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize
that
the RA level was enough.
Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far
I will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step
and the stipulated assumptions of comp.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:07 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is
> irrelevant
> >> to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple posts what your
> >>
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up
the entire
thought
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
>
> I don't like the word "existence" as it carries
> so much baggage with it. What you describe
> below is physical existence. That is a property
> of extended entities.
>
I agree, existence means diffe
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleig
Hi Bruno Marchal
No, the supreme Monad can see everything even
though the monads have no windows.
Also the "closeness to God" issue depends
on your clarity of vision and feeling. And perhaps appetites.
So everybody's different.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "I
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
> Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get
> this time, but
Hi Bruno Marchal
He called himself yhwh, and said "I am that I am".
Jews consider the name God to be sacred and not to be said aloud.
They will write it as perhaps G.d.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everythin
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:44 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> Lord of the Flies is basically the conservative view put forth by Hobbes
> (and Paul).
> At root we are criminals.
>
> Welfare is essentially the leftist view put forth by Rousseau.
> At root
Hi Bruno Marchal
God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real! That is the
entire point of Reality. It i
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> Exactly. There may a problem with this, but its seems
> that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant),
> I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that- when I look out
> of
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> I obviously misunderstood your point.
> I still don't.
>
>
If there's something in particular I can clarify, let me know and I'll try
my best.
Craig
>
> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
> 9/5/
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:45, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal
world.
Hmm.. You simplify too much. Virtual means simulated or emulated by a
universal machine, and this is a 3p notion. The 1p is the phenomenal
reality, an
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
> Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference.
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> 锟斤拷� Please leave magic out of this, as "any sufficiently advanced
Hi Richard Ruquist
It is immoral to you, but the stockholders love it.
And so do the consumers of the company's products.
In my personal ethics, what is moral enhances life.
the immoral diminishes life.
If anything, as observed above, the company
is creating wealth and so enhancing life.
What
Hi Bruno Marchal
I've been defending cosmic intelligence (CI)
or Cosmic Mind, of Life , not the christian God, not
the whole shebang, the Trinity.
But actually I think they're probably all the same.
CI was there before the world was created-- for sure,
else the world could not have
been
I don't think that life or mind or intelligence
can be teleported. Especially since nobody knows what
they are.
I also don't believe that you can download
the contents of somebody's brain.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
Hi Roger,
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:23, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
No, the supreme Monad can see everything even
though the monads have no windows.
Also the "closeness to God" issue depends
on your clarity of vision and feeling. And perhaps appetites.
So everybody's different.
I agre
It is immoral to cause a recession that puts many out of work
and subsequently loss of home via foreclosure.
Bank of America is actually giving away
some of the homes they
have foreclosed.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> It is immoral to you, but the
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Hi Craig Weinberg
Insist. Interesting idea.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-0
Hi Craig Weinberg
In politics there are thus two tribes (always have been, always will be:
a) Lord of the Flies is basically the conservative view put forth by Hobbes
(and Paul).
At root we are savages.
b) Welfare is essentially the leftist view put forth by Rousseau.
At root we are saints.
I
Leibniz, my mentor, believed that reality (being mental)
consists of an infinite collection of (inextended)
mathematical points called monads.
These can never be created or destroyed.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
Hi Craig Weinberg
Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's.
Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall)
as "occasions of experience".
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could
Hi Jason Resch
virtual reality model
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Time:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Let's see, average survival of a Las Vegas hotel is what, 30 years? Then
> they blow them up.
>
Yes, after that time a Las Vegas hotel no longer serves a function. The
Egyptian pyramids are quite different in that respect, they NEVER had a
On 9/5/2012 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I
don't
see how it makes sense
On 9/5/2012 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
question.
Nor does Arithmetical Truth.
God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it
inconsistent.
Dear Bruno,
Might it be agreeable to you to stipulate the pos
On 9/5/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptio
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
> walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
> Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
> durations. That is the only test t
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are
emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators
as they describe the same computations and the same object: you can prove the exis
On 9/5/2012 1:40 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Craig Weinberg
> Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's.
> Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall)
> as "occasions of experience".
>
Hi Roger,
A.N.Whitehead's idea is similar to a version of Craig's sense idea made
in
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of "this or that", the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper "Time and the Geometry of
the Universe". I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when I read
the following:
"Empirical considerations cannot establish the existence of such point
events, but the geometrical tools discussed herein pre
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I started reading the new Maudlin paper "Time and the Geometry of the
> Universe". I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when I read the
> following:
>
> "E
On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
So why discuss them?
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper "Time and the Geometry of the
Universe". I got it
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
> how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
> would be surprised if I could be fooled by an inorganic body. Has there ever
> been one syn
On 9/5/2012 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
would be surprised if I could be fooled by an
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:50:11 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Let's see, average survival of a Las Vegas hotel is what, 30 years? Then
>> they blow them up.
>>
>
> Yes, after that time a Las Vegas hotel no longer serv
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I started reading the new Maudlin paper "Time and the Geometry
> of the Universe". I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when
> I read the following:
>
> "Empirical considerations cannot establish the exis
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >For certain choices of "this or that", the ultimate reality is
> >actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
> >basis means that the hardware running
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
>
> The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be>
> walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.>
> Ideally this process would be
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
>>
>> The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone
>> be
>> > walked off of their brain one hemisphere at
On 9/5/2012 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper "Time and the Geometry
of the Universe". I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when
I read the following:
"Empirical consi
>
> "Stephen P. King" Sep 05 07:06PM -0400
>On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
>
>So why discuss them?
>
> Yes, what's the point?
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence: that
> evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect.
> First, evolution has to produce things by evolving - not starting from a
> clean sheet. In t
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
> >>
> >> The test that I would use wo
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 11:26:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb >
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence:
> that
> > evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect.
> > Fir
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
>> responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
>> the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing,
>> but maintain the delus
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
> people talk to each other and give each other information, that some kind of
> consciousness must necessarily arise as a side-effect. You could say that it
> might ari
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
> >> responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
> >> the re
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
> > people talk to each other and give each other information, that some
> kind of
>
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg >
wrote:
>> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
>> responsible for realising were recei
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg >
wrote:
> I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
> people talk to each other and give e
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> But you couldn't realise you felt di
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:52:11 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I find that the least plausible expla
86 matches
Mail list logo
