On Sunday, March 3, 2013 11:02:02 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think you *can* conceive of a third option. I think you're
> >> just saying you can, like saying that you can conceive of a four-sided
> >> triangle.
>
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> I don't think you *can* conceive of a third option. I think you're
>> just saying you can, like saying that you can conceive of a four-sided
>> triangle.
>
>
> I don't have to conceive of a third option, my will embodies it. That's why
> y
Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
The genie about the reality of sense just doesn't seem to want to stay in
the bottle...
Craig
http://www.newswise.com/articles/ectopic-eyes-function-without-connection-to-brain
*Experiments with tadpoles show ectopic ey
On 3/3/2013 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well if what emerges from comp is not physics, then physics refutes comp.
So that means that you can use physics to say what comp must emerge.
what is proposed is that both comp and physics are co-emergent and
co-defining. Neither is ontologicall
Well if what emerges from comp is not physics, then physics refutes comp.
So that means that you can use physics to say what comp must emerge.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
> Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure how a paper that assumes
> physics can say anythi
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM, wrote:
> Richard, a very good paper you have there. The Mindspace recording mechanism
> you invoked sounds exactly like the Hindu akashic records feature to their
> religion. For people like myself, you'd need to expand on the particular
> physics of the recording,
On Sunday, March 3, 2013 6:54:27 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> I could easily think of evidence that would convince me, for example,
> >> that the moon landing was a hoax, but no conceivable evidence would
> >> have any bear
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> I could easily think of evidence that would convince me, for example,
>> that the moon landing was a hoax, but no conceivable evidence would
>> have any bearing on the fact that everything is either determined or
>> random, since this is t
On 3/3/2013 3:43 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure how a paper that
assumes physics can say anything about how physics might emerge from
arithmetic.
Check out this paper: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
On Mar 3, 2013 2:49 PM, "Stephen
Richard, a very good paper you have there. The Mindspace recording
mechanism you invoked sounds exactly like the Hindu akashic records feature to
their religion. For people like myself, you'd need to expand on the particular
physics of the recording, such as what is analogous to the read-writ
Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure how a paper that assumes
physics can say anything about how physics might emerge from arithmetic.
On Mar 3, 2013 2:49 PM, "Stephen P. King" wrote:
> On 3/3/2013 10:11 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> That's a nice read but written un
In a message dated 3/3/2013 3:30:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
yann...@gmail.com writes:
Mitch,
My opinion is that monads are everywhere at a density of 10^90/cc,
and they precipitated out of space in the big bang
http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2013/
Richard
Thanks, Richard. So you view monad
Mitch,
My opinion is that monads are everywhere at a density of 10^90/cc,
and they precipitated out of space in the big bang
http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2013/
Richard
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM, wrote:
> Questions. In your opinion, are Leibniz's monads individual thoughts, are
> the just an
On Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:35:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are
> >> >intentionally saying it?
> > "Intentional", as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is
> > more or
On 3/3/2013 10:11 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Stephen,
That's a nice read but written under the materialist assumption so
doesn't really apply to my question.
Terren
Hi Terren,
Hummm, I can translate it in my mind over to the dual...
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Stephen P. King
On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are
>intentionally saying it?
"Intentional", as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is
more or less equivalent to "mental" or "conscious". You seem to take
it as an a priori f
Questions. In your opinion, are Leibniz's monads individual thoughts, are
the just another word for the soul, the who thing wrapped up together? How
do these monads become part of the human brain? Are they generated by the
brain, or do they emit out of some Platonic realm, to activate the
ne
On 03 Mar 2013, at 06:37, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi,
When Bruno claims that physics can be derived from the UD, would a
proof of that represent, on some level, a (partial) solution to the
measure problem?
Yes. UDA gives the large shape (cf Plato versus Aristotle), and the
translation in
On 03 Mar 2013, at 01:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120,
but we never need 10^120 + 1.
But physics is no more a
Hi Stephen,
That's a nice read but written under the materialist assumption so doesn't
really apply to my question.
Terren
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 3/3/2013 12:37 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When Bruno claims that physics can be derived from the UD
The roles of efficient causation and final causation in the double aspect
theory of mind
The double aspect theory of mind considers the brain and its actions according
to two aspects, the brain and the mind. There is no assignment of causation,
there is only correlation.
Leibniz's metaphysics, o
On Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:56:18 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> It's still random.
> >
> >
> > No, it isn't. If it were, then his book would be about the Neuronal
> Basis
> > for The Illusion of Free Will.
>
> Free will i
On 02 Mar 2013, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerd
On 3/3/2013 12:37 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi,
When Bruno claims that physics can be derived from the UD, would a
proof of that represent, on some level, a (partial) solution to the
measure problem?
Terren
--
Hi Terren,
It would seem so, or more accurately the other-way around. I just
24 matches
Mail list logo
