From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:25:07 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:22:46 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 15:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> So much of our attention in logic and m
Whom do you anticipate performing the emulation?
Comp is used as an abbreviation of computationalism, or CTM (computationalist
theory of the mind). it is basically the assumption that the brain is computer
emulable. That is detailed in the step 0 of the UD Argument.
-Original Messag
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> What difference do you se between comp and computationalism?
>
Why ask me? You're the one who felt that "computationalism" didn't
adequately convey the idea you had and so you needed to invent a new word,
a word used on this list and no pla
On 17 Jul 2014, at 17:09, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On
Why I have to claim that?
I claim that any monistic ("scientific") theory that predict infinite
many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many
degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the
realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism,
ca
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Computationalism is contradictory?
No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but "comp" is.
What difference do you se between comp and computationalism?
Comp is used as an abbreviation
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Computationalism is contradictory?
>
No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but "comp" is.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from th
On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atheist
Salman Rushdi
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> I can think of few things more disgusting or economically ridiculous
>> that 18 square miles of stagnant salt water algae ponds in the desert.
>>
>
> > Actually there are pilot installations
You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on
planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in
which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or
dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of t
2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing.
>
> Which one? What do you mean by "absolutely everything"?
>
>
>
>> they
>> are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theorie
What do you two say about this (year old) Science 2.0 article, in relation to
the mathematical description of reality? The writer is or was a physicist at
CERN. I have heard, Lord Rees, UK's astronomer royal, say the same thing.
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/physics_resurr
On 17 Jul 2014, at 14:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Computationalism is necessarily consistent,
I am not sure we can know that, at least in any reasonably justifiable
way.
but may not be complete except in nearly infinite domains.
It is incomplete with respect to arithmetical truth, and
This illustrated video might be of interest:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151781219163852
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>
>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-16 19:22
2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>> On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:2
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On
On 14 July 2014 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
But from the above I'm led to wonder whether you've actually read the MGA,
> so I repeat them here for convenient reference:
Hi Brent - did you see my response to this?
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Computationalism is necessarily consistent, but may not be complete except
in nearly infinite domains.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> John Clark is NO
Here's a curious article on AGW (exaggerated or not) that may explain things
better. The synergy of biology interacting with geology is fascinating to me.
It makes me feel (not know) that Earth must vanishingly rare as a biotic
planet. We may detect planets with nitrogen-oxygen atmospheres with
Both the right and left? Naw! The Left respects useful tools practicing
religion for the cause. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are the most prominent
and successful, for the 'cause.' The cause is ideological, a faith movement,
sans, religion. as such. Is religion bloodthirsty? For sure. Worldwi
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atheist
Salman Rushdie wrote:
> religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion inter
On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing.
Which one? What do you mean by "absolutely everything"?
they
are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow
any interpretation anyone may like about th
On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:22:46 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jul 2014, at 15:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So much of our attention in logic and math is focused on using
processes to turn specific inputs into even more specific binar
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:37 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The subtle distinction between belief & faith
On 16 Jul 2014, at 04:23, 'Chris de Morsel
25 matches
Mail list logo
