Reminds me of something I heard once "The best joke in the universe is that
science will win every battle but religion won the war before it even
began."
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King w
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:40:10AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> The more interesting question is how the physical universe could have
> been created out of the nonphysical, which I take to be intelligence.
>
There are many accounts of how something (the universe) could have
arisen from nothi
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Yes, the question is about a prediction.
>
And my question is why is the question about prediction rather than
remembering which would make far more sense. Using prediction to establish
a chain of custody for your personal identity works
On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:42:24 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> When I say that all bodies live, I failed to state that they must be
> monads, which
> means that that they must be of one part. I don't think mannekins would
> qualify,
> nor cartoons, which aren't eve
On 11/16/2012 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
But how could one know if the others are telling the truth ?
Umm, I only assume the barest appearance of interactions. All of
this is fully consistent with Leibniz' monadology. Monads have no
windows and do not exchange substan
On 15 Nov 2012, at 17:18, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,
Perhaps these problems below fade away if you think
of numbers in this way:
In the beginning were the numbers
and the numbers were with Mind and
the numbers were Mind.
I can accept this a short poetical sum up. But
On 15 Nov 2012, at 17:06, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
No connection, I was just looking at the meaning of
the Diophantine equations. Their meanings as categories possibly.
Ie, can numbers be categorized by the D eqns they fit ?
If some numbers fit these equations , do they have some p
On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:52, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno,
There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind,
because
mind is non-existent (not created).
There are a lot of infinite regress in arithmetic. I am not sure how
you related this with created and
On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If he's a devout Muslim he believes he will go to heaven with 77
virgins when he pushes that button, but as I said I really don't
care what he believes will happen, I care about what will happen.
>
Hi Stephen P. King
But how could one know if the others are telling the truth ?
The surest test could only be a Turing Test.
Plus I have another difficulty with solipsim. If perception
must proceed existence, then one could never be stabbed
in the back.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1
Hi Craig Weinberg
When I say that all bodies live, I failed to state that they must be monads,
which
means that that they must be of one part. I don't think mannekins would
qualify,
nor cartoons, which aren't even bodies. " Of one part" I think means that there
is something holding the thing
On 11/16/2012 6:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
How is the agreement of many minds known if they are all solipsists ?
Hi Roger,
The agreement is known by the appearance of a common world. It is
the manifestation of their "mutual truth".
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.ne
On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:55:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize
> the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness.
> I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz) is
> that
Hi Stephen,
Hogan appears to be a total skeptic. What can I say ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/16/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-15, 10:45:
Hi Stephen P. King
Mind has no properties other than being nonphysical, so no problem.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/16/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Hi Stephen P. King
How is the agreement of many minds known if they are all solipsists ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/16/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-l
Hi Russell Standish
OK. So something happened and the physical universe expanded out of that.
Or there were even a series of such explosions, which is Penrose's contention.
Fine, as long as they explain the facts.
The more interesting question is how the physical universe could have
been created
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads are as you say, but only potentially.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/16/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-15, 13:0
Hi Craig Weinberg
I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize
the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness.
I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz) is that
nature down to the lowliest beings (a grain of sand) has intelligence
of some s
19 matches
Mail list logo
