On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological
>> >> events
>> >> follow deter
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 4/10/2013 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:08:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 4/10/2013 2:08 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Hi Telmo,
>>
>> Yes, those are good counter examples.
>>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:18:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived
> > interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very "junk
> > science" problem you mention.
On 4/10/2013 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:08:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/10/2013 2:08 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Yes, those are good counter examples.
But I think to say "pain and pleasure are fine-tuned by evolution..." is a
slei
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:08:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 4/10/2013 2:08 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hi Telmo,
>
> Yes, those are good counter examples.
>
> But I think to say "pain and pleasure are fine-tuned by evolution..." is
> a sleight of hand. Pain and pleasure are phenome
Evgeniy, I did not read the paper either, but fundmentally agree with your
evaluation - not in toto, of course. I even take it further: THE WORLD is
in the MIND (not brain, see my reflection to Bruno below) and it is
individually different for EACH OF US, as our "mini-solipsism" - the way
we, in ou
""What we need now is 20 years of serious neuroscience, not more
speculation about the handful of studies that have been done so far," he
says."
Too bad that we have no freedom to decide whether to pursue serious
neuroscience instead of more speculation...it's all up to "neurons, and
there are
On 4/10/2013 2:08 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Yes, those are good counter examples.
But I think to say "pain and pleasure are fine-tuned by evolution..." is a sleight of
hand. Pain and pleasure are phenomenological primitives. If evolution created those
primitives, how did it do that?
On 4/10/2013 1:57 PM, Yon wrote:
New replications of Libet's experiment...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23367-brain-imaging-spots-our-abstract-choices-before-we-do.html
Yon
It's disappointing to me that they don't take advantage of these volunteers to repeat the
Grey Walter experi
On 4/10/2013 1:55 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 22:52 Telmo Menezes said the following:
...
I suspect life is just meaningless from the outside. I'd say that
pain and pleasure are fine-tunned by evolution to maximise the
survivability of species in an environment that is largely also
On 4/10/2013 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
This is close to an idea I have been mulling over for some time... that the source of
the phenomenological feeling of pleasure is in some way identified with decreases in
entropy, and pain is in some way identified with increases in entropy. It is a way
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
> Yes, those are good counter examples.
>
> But I think to say "pain and pleasure are fine-tuned by evolution..." is a
> sleight of hand. Pain and pleasure are phenomenological primitives. If
> evolution created those primitives,
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:36:47 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> This is close to an idea I have been mulling over for some time... that
> the source of the phenomenological feeling of pleasure is in some way
> identified with decreases in entropy, and pain is in some way identified
> w
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 10.04.2013 22:52 Telmo Menezes said the following:
>
>
> ...
>
>> I suspect life is just meaningless from the outside. I'd say that
>> pain and pleasure are fine-tunned by evolution to maximise the
>> survivability of species in an envir
Hi Telmo,
Yes, those are good counter examples.
But I think to say "pain and pleasure are fine-tuned by evolution..." is a
sleight of hand. Pain and pleasure are phenomenological primitives. If
evolution created those primitives, how did it do that? By what mechanism?
Another way to think of thi
On 4/10/2013 1:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 22:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/10/2013 1:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s W
On 10.04.2013 22:52 Telmo Menezes said the following:
...
I suspect life is just meaningless from the outside. I'd say that
pain and pleasure are fine-tunned by evolution to maximise the
survivability of species in an environment that is largely also
generated by evolution. It's a strange loop.
This is absolutely fascinating and you don't have to
understand mathematics to enjoiy it.
A Mathematical Mystery Tour - BBC Horizon Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lJlsXYs8Sg
Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/10/2013
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
You received this message
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
> This is close to an idea I have been mulling over for some time... that the
> source of the phenomenological feeling of pleasure is in some way identified
> with decreases in entropy, and pain is in some way identified with increases
> in en
On 10.04.2013 22:36 Terren Suydam said the following:
This is close to an idea I have been mulling over for some time...
that the source of the phenomenological feeling of pleasure is in
some way identified with decreases in entropy, and pain is in some
way identified with increases in entropy. I
On 10.04.2013 22:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/10/2013 1:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s What is
Life?, reread his chapter on Order, Di
This is close to an idea I have been mulling over for some time... that the
source of the phenomenological feeling of pleasure is in some way
identified with decreases in entropy, and pain is in some way identified
with increases in entropy. It is a way to map the subjective experience of
pain and
On 4/10/2013 1:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s What is
Life?, reread his chapter on Order, Disorder and Entropy and made
my comments
http://bl
On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s What is
Life?, reread his chapter on Order, Disorder and Entropy and made
my comments
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/04/schrodinger-disorder-and
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of
>> Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era.
>>
>
> Yes, what's killing the E
Their admissions standards have already tanked
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of
>> Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era.
>>
>
> Y
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of
> Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era.
>
Yes, what's killing the Enlightenment is the lack of papers about astrology
and numerology, so Nature and Science
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived
> interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very "junk
> science" problem you mention.
>
I don't know what that means.
> What I am saying is in this wired
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological
> events
> >> follow deterministic or probabilistic rules then you will also follow
> >
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:49:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 06 Apr 2013, at 01:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> You already are aware of the relevant aspects of your brain function, and
> aware of them in a way which is a million times more detailed than any fMRI
> could ever be.
>
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological events
>> follow deterministic or probabilistic rules then you will also follow
>> deterministic or probabilistic rules.
>
>
> That's a tautology. If I move my arm, then I
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:15:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 09 Apr 2013, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2013 5:38:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>> > On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Where do you get the idea that subjective events cannot repeat? It
>> seems another thing that you've just made up, with no rational
>> justification.
>
>
> Subjective events cannot literally repeat for the same reason that
> historical e
On 09 Apr 2013, at 21:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the fo
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> > On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
> >>
> >> On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
>
On 09 Apr 2013, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, April 8, 2013 5:38:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
>> On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>> On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Wei
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:04:14 AM UTC-4, ColinHales wrote:
>
> Colin’s Wackier Version:
>
>
>
> Because the space they operate in, at the scale in which the decay
> operates, there are far more dimensions than 3.
> They decay deterministically in >>3D and it appears, to us, to be rando
37 matches
Mail list logo
