On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
HI Rex,
Nice post! Could you riff a bit on what the number PHI tells us about
this characteristic. How is it that it seems that our
Regarding computers, there are two types of knowledge. You say
I know John Smith
If you have actually met him, this is called knowledge by acquaintance.
If you have just heard about him, this is called knowledge by desciption.
Computers can't deal with the former, knowledge by acquaintance .
Hi Jason Resch
With the exception of the All, which acts like the central
processing unit of a computer, the world entities, represented
abstractly there as ideas, an act like the software and
hardware of a giant computer. The All, like the CPU, brings
these abstractions elsewhere in Platonia
Hi meekerdb
What exists physically has extension. That would be the phenomenol world.
What exist as non-extensive (nonphysical) mental representations of the real
world components
are abstractions or idea entities in what is called Platonia
Usually when we say that something exists we mean
Hi meekerdb
The CO2 is mostly dissolved in the oceans. The oceans are the vast reservoir
for CO2.
When the oceans warm, the solubility of the CO2 becomes less and so is added to
the atmosphere as a gas.
When the oceans cool, the CO2 is more soluble in the colder water, and so is
Hi Richard Ruquist
Another drive-by shooting. Just an unsupported denial
and you speed off. How can you be taken seriously ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the
I was waiting for your reply.
Alas, Jesus was a Jew
and Jews have 613 commandments,
not just 10.
Insults do not help your argument.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Another drive-by shooting. Just an unsupported denial
and you speed
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, we can be fooled. Satan is the great deceiver.
But I don't think that Satan has any real love, beauty or goodness
to share. Only fakes. Or only for show.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that
Hi Craig Weinberg
I would trust what 1,000,000 people in a free market pick
over what one socialist political chosen bureaucrat would pick.
That's not just finding honesty in numbers, it's local vs
remote desires and knowledge. Local wins every time.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Craig and Evgenii,
Thanks for the suggestion to look at Strawson.
IMHO Unfortunately he starts off with the wacky assumption
that the self is physical. Garbage in, garbage out.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
Hi John Clark
I suppose then that the cave men ended the last ice age and
began warming the earth again by driving big gas guzzlers.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving
Hi John Clark
God loved the believers and hated the nonbelievers,
at least that's what the Bible tells us.
So who would he slay ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
-
Hi Stephen P. King
The Christian Church, the Bride of Christ, is also called
the communion of saints. That means that they are all children
of God, and their minds are lead by the Bible and fellow
believers. So faith is shared sotospeak.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads are not rigidly separated.
So change in one mind is reflected in all,
the extent being how capable the others are of reading
the content and their similarity to the subject.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd
Hi Richard Ruquist
I was irritated because I have already answered this question.
Jesus did away with the laws of the jews, which to my mind were
the laws of man, not God. The Laws of God are the 10 commandments.
They held and still do, just as God declared them.
To give you a for instgance,
Hi meekerdb
You can argue about numbers until the cows come home,
but what IS clear, plainly and patently clear,
is that there were no automobiles after
the last ice age to create CO2 to start warming again.
Case closed.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say,
Hi Stephen P. King
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Descartes believed in only TWO kinds of substance: material body, which is
defined by extension,
and mental substance, which is defined by thought, which, in this context, is
more or less equivalent to consciousness.
snip
Hi Stephen P. King
The two words are commonly confused.
Faith is wordless trust, personal and interior. It is in the heart.
Beliefs are public expressions of that faith and its object, and a
whole lot more, and are thus in words. So it is in the head.
For more, see
Hi Stephen P. King
The physical is, and only is, what you can measure.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
Hi Stephen P. King
Forgive me if I bring up Leibniz again, but to my mind he gives
the most thorough descriptions as to how the world works.
And so logical that you can figure out many things
on your own.
Monads are capsules of objects of the mind consisting of mental substances
if they have
On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, this
set has subsets, and we can limit our discussion to these subsets. For
example, if we are interested only in mass, we can simulate a human
perfectly using the right number of rocks. Even someone who
Roger, So you must think that the jewish law condemning homosexual behavior
was eliminated by Jesus. It's not in the 10 and certainly Christians
are making a big fuss over it.
Richard
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I was irritated
On 9/17/2012 9:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Forgive me if I bring up Leibniz again, but to my mind he gives
the most thorough descriptions as to how the world works.
And so logical that you can figure out many things
on your own.
Dear Roger,
I too have found Leibniz'
On 9/17/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads are not rigidly separated.
So change in one mind is reflected in all,
the extent being how capable the others are of reading
the content and their similarity to the subject.
Dear Roger,
Your defiction is what we get if we
On 9/17/2012 8:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Descartes believed in only TWO
kinds of substance: material body, which is defined by extension,
and mental substance, which is defined by thought, which, in this context, is more
or
On 9/17/2012 8:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The two words are commonly confused.
Faith is wordless trust, personal and interior. It is in the heart.
Beliefs are public expressions of that faith and its object, and a
whole lot more, and are thus in words. So it is in the head.
On 9/17/2012 8:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The physical is, and only is, what you can measure.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
Yes,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think an easier way to intuit prime numbers that can't be represented as
rectangles, only a 1-wide lines.
While the concept of primes is straight forward, there is an unending set
of not-so-obvious facts that we
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If you adjust the scale of a graph you can always make a gentle rise
look like a near vertical wall.
Yes, that's why historical graphs covering hundreds of thousands of years
make it appear that CO2 and temperature changes in
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
of the simulated Craig eating the simulated meal. I expect Craig to
say that the simulated Craig, the one making the yummy noises, is a
zombie, and has no
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein? How can you make
sense of that in terms of the constructivist point of view that you
are (I think) compelled to take if you argue against arithmetical
platonism? It seems
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God loved the believers and hated the nonbelievers, at least that's what
the Bible tells us.
Yes that's what the Bible says, it says that a omnipotent omniscient being
is pretending that He does not exist and He hates
Jesus said that he likes people to be hot or cold, atheists and
theists that keep all the commandments, even ones he added like
praying in a closet.
The other people are the least in heaven, which BTW implies that we
all make to heaven. He especially dislikes those who change or
reinterprete his
On 16.09.2012 21:55 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/16/2012 12:44 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 15.09.2012 21:56 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2012 9:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/15/2012 4:11 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
...
Hi Russell,
That is far too inclusive a
On 16.09.2012 21:56 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/16/2012 12:34 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Craig,
You may want to look at
Galen Strawson, Selves: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics
He proves that selves exist. Interestingly enough he does it based
on the materialist framework.
p.
On 16.09.2012 23:51 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/16/2012 2:42 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Strawson, what exists as a thing is
SUBJECT OF EXPERIENCE-AS-SINGLE-MENTAL-THING
for short SESMET.
Hence no contradiction.
Evgenii
OK! Then Strawson cannot claim to be a
On 17.09.2012 13:20 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Craig and Evgenii,
Thanks for the suggestion to look at Strawson.
IMHO Unfortunately he starts off with the wacky assumption that the
self is physical. Garbage in, garbage out.
What he means by physical is might be different thought. I
On 16.09.2012 22:11 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/16/2012 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
If you look at Germany, you see that you are not quite right. It is
better to see this, as usually, a fight for resources between
different interest groups, in this case for example an
On Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20:10 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
of the simulated Craig eating the simulated meal. I expect Craig to
say that the
On 9/17/2012 10:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein? How can you make
sense of that in terms of the constructivist point of view
How can you make sense of it otherwise. The
On 9/17/2012 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote:
Most adults don't believe in Santa Claus even though they once did because they were
told by their parents when they were still quite young that he didn't exist, if they
waited until they were 17 to be informed it would be too late and they wouldn't have
You outsiders cannot really know how out-of-topic this fallacy may be. It
is an attempt to use money for dulling the human mind. Really no
relationship to the list's aims.
JohnM
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Sep 2012, at 22:32, John Clark wrote:
I would say computers were the tool that allowed us to see it, like a
microscope allowed us to see bacteria, and a telescope stars.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Bretn
On 9/17/2012 1:17 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I would say computers were the tool that allowed us to see it, like a
microscope allowed us to see bacteria, and a telescope stars.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM,
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
of the simulated Craig eating the simulated meal. I expect Craig to
say that the simulated Craig, the one making
On Monday, September 17, 2012 9:24:23 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Moreover, this
set has subsets, and we can limit our discussion to these subsets. For
example, if we are interested only in mass, we can
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
of the simulated Craig eating the
On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
of the simulated Craig eating the
Benoit Mandelbrot did. But what does interesting have to do with it?
Did anyone think that empty patch of sky was interesting before
Hubble turned it into one of the most amazing photos ever taken?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But did anybody think z' =
On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 9:24:23 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Moreover, this
set has subsets, and we can limit our discussion to these
On 9/17/2012 5:41 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial
On 9/17/2012 2:45 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Benoit Mandelbrot did.
I wasn't aware of that. Did he have a proof of the fractal nature of the set before he
calculated it?
Brent
But what does interesting have to do with it?
Did anyone think that empty patch of sky was interesting before
On Monday, September 17, 2012 5:44:16 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King
step...@charter.netjavascript:
wrote:
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is
I think that comp is almost true, except for when applied to consciousness
itself, in which case it is exactly false. I wasn't asserting it so much as
I was illustrating exactly why that is the case. Does anyone have any
common sense analogy or story which makes sense of comp as a generator of
On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:18:00 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
Craig,
Do you think if your brain were cut in half, but then perfectly put back
together that you would still be conscious in the same way?
There is no such thing as perfectly put back together. If you cut a living
cell in
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that, but it still assumes that there is a such thing as a set
of functions which could be identified and reproduced that cause
consciousness. I don't assume that, because consciousness isn't like
On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02:16 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I understand that, but it still assumes that there is a such thing as a
set
of functions which could be identified and reproduced
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 2:45 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Benoit Mandelbrot did.
I wasn't aware of that. Did he have a proof of the fractal nature of the
set before he calculated it?
Brent
I don't know. I doubt it, I'm not even sure
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Terren,
Comp is false is too strong. He is explaining how comp is
incomplete. The movie graph argument is flawed.
I'm not sure what that means, that comp is incomplete. You either
start from the assumption
I don't think there is much in the way of common sense if you want
an explanation of consciousness from comp. I think it is fairly
non-intuitive. The mainstream account which holds both comp and
materialism doesn't address it. The only account I know of that
explains consciousness from comp is
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:18:00 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
Craig,
Do you think if your brain were cut in half, but then perfectly put back
together that you would still be conscious in the same way?
There
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I think that comp is almost true, except for when applied to consciousness
itself, in which case it is exactly false. I wasn't asserting it so much as
I was illustrating exactly why that is the case. Does anyone have
62 matches
Mail list logo
