On 10 Sep 2013, at 17:35, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>> I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its
overal philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
>> OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at
On 10 Sep 2013, at 17:47, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:
>chris Lol.
A good mockig of the reductionist obsession with the details and
despising the big picture. For sure you have work hard to certify
that John has asked that three times and no
Leibniz. What's the difference between existence and being ?
According to the metaphysics of Leibniz, the universe has two often correlated
aspects,
existence and being, each usually the flip side of the other.
1. Existence. Physical objects exist in spacetime. This includes the
elementary parti
On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can
refute theories, and it can provides evidences for theories, but
not automatically the truth.
Scientific theories are certainly not auto
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Russell Standish
wrote:
> Should've given this thread a new name yonks ago
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:42:32AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Russell Standish
>> wrote:
>> > I suspect the idea is wrong, because it fails to exp
Help Kickstart World War III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscr
>I don't see how reporting on something that people have known for
thousands of years is new or unexpected.
It's new because most white, educated reading audiences at that time didn't
hang out with Huichol shamans. It's like saying 'why would anyone listen to
Elvis Presley sing 'Hound Dog' wh
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM, chris peck wrote:
> Given the way John has framed the task any contribution made by xyz will
> end up not being a contribution in philosophy. Take Charles Pierce who
> pretty much founded semiotics and made contributions in fields as diverse
> as psychology and che
On 9/11/2013 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories,
and it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth.
S
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Einstein read Kant, and loved Spinoza, and admit his influence in his own
> research.
>
He may have read and loved detective stories too. Einstein was interested
in things other than science, like politics, and those thinkers may have
helped him there
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> My point was just that the verdict against Galileo was rational, or
> Popperian.
>
I don't believe that Karl Popper was as deep a thinker as many on this list
do, but I don't think he was as big a fool as THAT!
> Aristotle was refuted, but
On 9/11/2013 11:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
"But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with reality if there's
any reality at all"
There may be an underlyng reality behind. Matter and their phenomena can be a derived
reality
Math -> compution -> time -> mind -> geome
On 9/11/2013 11:26 AM, John Clark wrote:
Philosophy is NOT worthless, it's philosophers that are worthless because, despite the
similar sounding words, philosophers haven't done any philosophy in 200 years.
Since philosophy can be useful it's reasonable that some people try to specialize in doi
Dear Russell,
based on my 2-decade long reading of your posts I have a question, if you
don't mind:
I guess you are still interested in AL, so "L" is includable.
What is " L I F E " in your view? you said: biocomplexity, what raises the
question in my mind: wat is that "bio" we know so little about
"But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with
reality if there's any reality at all"
There may be an underlyng reality behind. Matter and their phenomena can be
a derived reality
Math -> compution -> time -> mind -> geometry -> space -> matter and
phenomena
2013/9/11 meek
From: Richard Ruquist
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
>> I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
>> things.
My best ex
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 05:42:45PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Russell,
> based on my 2-decade long reading of your posts I have a question, if you
> don't mind:
> I guess you are still interested in AL, so "L" is includable.
> What is " L I F E " in your view?
One of the reasons for studying
I agree -- before we can begin to tackle the meaning of consciousness, the
"self", "self-awareness", "free will" and so on we need to get on firmer ground
of what we mean by even more fundamental things such as the meaning of "life"
and of "living". Only when we have a much better understanding
On 9/11/2013 5:19 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I don't think that argument holds water. I can't exclude it of course; unlike some
around here I know I don't know; however it does not seem to me that this is an
inevitable result of the mechanics of processing choice... of making comparisons,
esp
19 matches
Mail list logo
