On 28.01.2012 23:26 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/27/2012 11:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
You disagree that engineers do not use thermodynamic entropy
Yes. I disagreed that information has nothing to do with
thermodynamic entropy, as you wrote above. You keep switching
On 29.01.2012 00:42 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:05:57PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In general we are surrounded devices that store information (hard
discs, memory sticks, DVD, etc.). The information that these
devices can store, I believe, is known
On 29.01.2012 00:15 Pierz said the following:
On Jan 28, 11:04 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 26.01.2012 07:19 Pierz said the following:
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a
niggling doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give
a satisfactory
On 29.01.2012 00:57 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/28/2012 3:15 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:04 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
Let my quote Jeffrey Gray (Consciousness: Creeping up on the
Hard Problem, p. 33) on biology and physics.
In very general terms, biology makes
On 28.01.2012 00:24 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Jan 27, 1:31 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
With the second law of thermodynamics, it seems like heat could
only dissipate by heating something else
On 28.01.2012 11:20 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:58:54AM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 27.01.2012 23:46 Russell Standish said the following:
For one thing, it indicates to storing just two bits of
information on these physical substrates is grossly
On 26.01.2012 07:19 Pierz said the following:
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give a
satisfactory explanation of qualia. It seems to me that imputing
qualia to calculations (indeed consciousness at all, thought
On 25.01.2012 21:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/25/2012 11:47 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let me suggest a very simple case to understand better what you are
saying. Let us consider a string 10 for simplicity. Let us
consider the next cases. I will cite first the thermodynamic
On 26.01.2012 12:00 Russell Standish said the following:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:47:03PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Let me suggest a very simple case to understand better what you
are saying. Let us consider a string 10 for simplicity. Let us
consider the next cases. I will cite first
On 26.01.2012 19:01 John Clark said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
...
If I have red legos and white legos, and I build two opposite
monochrome
houses and one of mixed blocks, how in the world does that effect
the entropy of the
On 27.01.2012 05:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/26/2012 5:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
...
I'm just curious, not trying to argue with you about it. On a
similar note, I was wondering about heat loss in a vacuum today.
With the second law of thermodynamics, it seems like heat could
On 27.01.2012 21:22 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/27/2012 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 25.01.2012 21:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/25/2012 11:47 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let me suggest a very simple case to understand better what you
are saying. Let us consider a string
On 27.01.2012 23:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/27/2012 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 27.01.2012 21:22 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/27/2012 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 25.01.2012 21:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/25/2012 11:47 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let
On 27.01.2012 23:46 Russell Standish said the following:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 08:27:31PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.01.2012 12:00 Russell Standish said the following:
If you included these two bits, the thermodynamic entropy is two
bits less, = 4.15 x 10^{-24} J/K less
This is so
On 23.01.2012 01:26 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:16:23PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
and since information is measured by order
On 24.01.2012 13:49 Craig Weinberg said the following:
If you are instead saying that they are inversely proportional then
I would agree in general - information can be considered negentropy.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that they are directly proportional
measures (Brent and Evgenii seem
On 24.01.2012 22:56 meekerdb said the following:
In thinking about how to answer this I came across an excellent paper
by Roman Frigg and Charlotte Werndl
http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/EntropyGuide.pdf which explicates
the relation more comprehensively than I could and which also gives
On 21.01.2012 22:03 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following:
On 21.01.2012 21:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 11:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.01.2012 20:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 4:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
2) If physicists say that information
principle.
On 16.01.2012 11:20 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 15 Jan 2012, at 09:13, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
What about the Turing test for a person in that state to check if
he still has consciousness?
As I said in another post, the very idea of the Turing test consists
in avoiding
book in the strict sense. He discusses
rather what our society should look like in the future. He claims that
open code/open culture leads to cybernetic totalism and fights against it.
Evgenii
On 22.01.2012 18:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 22 Jan 2012, at 14:10, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote
On 22.01.2012 18:39 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote
Yes, but there is nothing illogical about infinite progressions;
or
maybe the Big Bang happened for no reason, nothing illogical
about that either.
This would
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
and since information is measured by order, a maximum of order is
conveyed by a maximum of disorder. Obviously, this is a Babylonian
muddle. Somebody or something has
On 22.01.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
I would say though that something does not happen for a reason
and
something happens for no reason are two completely different
statements. Don't you agree?
What the
On 21.01.2012 08:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/20/2012 12:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
What about Big Bang?
What about Big Bang?
It has also happened for a reason?
I
On 21.01.2012 10:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 12:43 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.01.2012 08:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/20/2012 12:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Basically I do not understand what the term information then
brings. One can certainly state that information is the same as the
entropy (we are free with definitions
On 21.01.2012 20:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 4:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
2) If physicists say that information is the entropy, they must
take it literally and then apply experimental thermodynamics to
measure information. This however seems not to happen.
It does
On 21.01.2012 21:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 11:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.01.2012 20:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 4:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
2) If physicists say that information is the entropy, they
must take it literally and then apply
On 21.01.2012 20:54 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
It [the Big Bang] has also happened for a reason?
I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it
did not
happen for a reason.
Well, then you have an
On 20.01.2012 02:34 Jason Resch said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jan 19, 4:56 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes. Craig argue that machine cannot thinks by pointing on its
fridge.
Are you afraid to burn coal in
On 20.01.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
...
If you define the universe as deterministic from the beginning, then
[...]
I most certainly do not! We know the universe is NOT deterministic
but we also know that
On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
What about Big Bang?
What about Big Bang?
It has also happened for a reason?
I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it did not
happen for a reason.
John
by a maximum of disorder. Obviously, this is a Babylonian
muddle. Somebody or something has confounded our language.
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru
On 18.01.2012 23:42 Russell Standish said the following:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 08:13:07PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.01.2012 18:47 John Clark
On 19.01.2012 06:37 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/18/2012 11:13 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
If you look around you may still find species of scientists who
still are working with classical thermodynamics (search for example
for CALPHAD). Well, if you refer to them as physicists
On 19.01.2012 20:41 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/19/2012 11:06 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.01.2012 06:37 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/18/2012 11:13 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
If you look around you may still find species of scientists
who still are working with classical
On 18.01.2012 18:47 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
Some physicists say that information is related to the entropy
That is incorrect, ALL physicists say that information is related to
entropy. There are quite a number of
On 14.01.2012 19:56 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 1/14/2012 1:15 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must
On 14.01.2012 08:21 John Clark said the following:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
…
For heavens sake, I went into quite a lot of detail about how the
code is executed so that protein gets made, and it could not be more
clear that the cell factory contains
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By the way in the Gray's book the term intelligence is not even
in the index. This was the biggest
On 14.01.2012 17:56 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/14/2012 12:08 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
and the obvious candidate is intelligence.\
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does
On 13.01.2012 22:39 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
Darwinian
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way
On 06.01.2012 20:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 10:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der
Wahrheit where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free
Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that book and have
On 06.01.2012 23:11 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
The church was asking
On 06.01.2012 22:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
This does not mean that everybody has to agree with him
[Feyerabend] but a statement about an idiot looks exaggerated.
If one can not use the word idiot to refer to
. At least his empirical search has found nothing else.
Could you please give examples of the first alternative that you mention?
Evgenii
On 07.01.2012 12:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 06 Jan 2012, at 19:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished
On 07.01.2012 17:21 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express
mine. Don't
you agree?
Yes, and Feyerabend should be free to say anything that pops into his
head no
On 07.01.2012 18:15 John Clark said the following:
Feyerabend Wrote:
Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed
for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with
science. It has something to do with the general quality of our
civilization. Heretics in science
On 05.01.2012 06:29 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic
to us. That doesn't make them real though.
And so simulators join a long long long list of things
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
Galileo has made science a lot and his
and it
should be treated as such.
Other quotes that I like are at
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/01/feyerabend-against-science.html
Evgenii
On 06.01.2012 18:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 06 Jan 2012, at 17:54, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
This statement contradict to a normal scientific world view but it
is based
On 06.01.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote
On 06.01.2012 21:15 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 12:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I do not know, I cannot exclude that German authorities have some
censorship in Internet (or Google censors its content to Germany)
but when I run Google scholar
http://scholar.google.com
On 03.01.2012 21:42 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/3/2012 12:24 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.01.2012 21:32 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/2/2012 12:24 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.01.2012 07:01 meekerdb said the following:
...
Everett's MWI is based on QM which does assume
On 02.01.2012 21:32 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/2/2012 12:24 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.01.2012 07:01 meekerdb said the following:
...
Everett's MWI is based on QM which does assume a background time
and the state of the multiverse evolves in Hilbert space. This
evolution entails
I have a link to somewhat more positive video:
Einstein to teach math and physics in American schools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkpWCu1k0ZI
Yet, I guess the Einstein's head has not reached the uncanny valley yet.
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru
On 30.12.2011 13:23 Craig Weinberg
On 02.01.2012 07:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/1/2012 4:59 PM, Pierz wrote:
...
David says it better than I could have, but just to add that when
I say I that is just a sort of short-hand for the 1-p
perspective. There is no separate experiencer. In UDA, it's simply
the notes in a
On 31.12.2011 22:57 meekerdb said the following:
On 12/31/2011 1:33 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 31.12.2011 22:00 meekerdb said the following:
...
Completely!? How do you know that? The Mars Rover doesn't just
record a sensor value in its computer, it also remember the value
and at a later
On 31.12.2011 09:17 Pierz said the following:
On Dec 31, 6:17 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2011 12:51 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:35 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 12/29/2011 4:11 PM, Pierz wrote: You think it is ludicrous
that a Mars Rover is
), then the difference will
be much more difficult to find. After all there are in both cases
interacting electrons and nuclei (well probably some electromagnetic
waves as well) and nothing more.
Evgenii
On 29.12.2011 19:40 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 29 Dec 2011, at 18:16, Evgenii
On 30.12.2011 04:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 12/29/2011 5:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
...
Yes, exactly like every other model of consciousness, not one has
the slightest bit of experimental evidence in its favor,
consciousness theories are all equally useless. So lets talk about
On 29.12.2011 16:48 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 28 Dec 2011, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:
...
Another question would be if such a car could be considered as an
observer in quantum
I don't know whether it's a Lobian machine or not; I guess that
depends on its program. But I'm
I have attended a class
Introduction to AI
http://www.ai-class.com
and there are two interesting videos from it about self-driving cars:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_BJUBpuvFE
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqDvbguZsAA
I have no idea if this are Lobian machines or not (such
On 16.09.2011 21:54 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/16/2011 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 9:52 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 12:20 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 9:08 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 11:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I
On 9/15/2011 9:46 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 15 Sep 2011, at 21:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 7:34 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At present, I am just trying to figure out our beliefs that
make
On 9/15/2011 9:52 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 12:20 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 9:08 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 11:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I personally do not see a difference in this respect between a
cell, for example, and a robot. On my
On 9/14/2011 9:54 PM Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Sep 14, 1:34 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
I would agree that it would easy to obtain thinking provided that
perception is there. This is though an open question, what does it
mean perception by a robot. Does for example
On 9/15/2011 7:34 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At present, I am just trying to figure out our beliefs that make
the simulation hypothesis possible.
But this is really astonishing, and in quasi-contradiction which
On 9/15/2011 9:08 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 11:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I personally do not see a difference in this respect between a
cell, for example, and a robot. On my hierarchy list
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/01/perception-feedback-and-qualia.html
a bacteria
On 9/13/2011 9:23 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's easy to assume that it helps, just as it's easy for me to
assume that we have free will. If we don't need our conscious mind
to make decisions, then we certainly don't need the fantasyland
On 9/14/2011 8:07 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/14/2011 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/13/2011 9:23 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's easy to assume that it helps, just as it's easy for me to
assume that we have free will. If we
the following:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 21:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/12/2011 8:06 AM Jason Resch said the following:
...
What about of dumb water molecules, can they not form a wave?
Complex things can result from very simple rules, when you have
a huge number of those simple things interacting
On 09.09.2011 23:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 1:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 09.09.2011 21:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 11:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking
observers works out.
Universals = what things of one kind have in common.
Evgenii
On 07.09.2011 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/6/2011 3:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Let me try it this way. Could we say that universals exist already
in the 3d person view and they are independent from
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I am
not sure if this could be generalized for all things). My first
naive/crazy idea was that this could give some basis to produce
qualia
On 09.09.2011 21:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 11:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I
am not sure if this could be generalized
Let me try it this way. Could we say that universals exist already in
the 3d person view and they are independent from the 1st person view?
Evgenii
On 06.09.2011 09:00 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 05 Sep 2011, at 21:02, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy
into the object-oriented programming.
Evgenii
On 06.09.2011 05:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 9/5/2011 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 1:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On 9/5/2011 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism
.
Evgenii
On 05.09.2011 18:59 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 04 Sep 2011, at 18:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A short remark. I have decided start with philosophy, as it is more
entertaining as mathematical logic.
I'm afraid you are wrong on this, with all my respect
On 04.09.2011 21:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/4/2011 11:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.09.2011 17:30 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On 04/09/2011, at 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following:
...
If that's
On 05.09.2011 07:59 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
Hence you could take the existence of people in the USA who
believe in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain
processes positively. After all, they are working
On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following:
...
If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to the
enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in America hates materialism
and believes in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes,
which is responsible for our thoughts
On 03.09.2011 19:41 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 02 Sep 2011, at 21:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks a lot for your answers. I have said Bruno's theory just to
keep it short, nothing more, sorry.
No problem. But logicians knows the devil is in the details
On 04.09.2011 17:30 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On 04/09/2011, at 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following:
...
If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to
the enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in
On 04.09.2011 20:32 meekerdb said the following:
...
In any case, I do not think that the ideology should affect
reasoning.
Should reason affect ideology?
In my view it actually happens. People have already come to conclusion
that we should not force people in what God to believe. People
On 02.09.2011 22:39 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.09.2011 20:07 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2011 12:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
In this series there is a clear statement that there are
questions that we cannot solve, for example
Stathis,
I do not understand you. It is not me, it is you who are talking about
souls. I have just asked you to explain the phenomenon that I observe
and you have not done it yet.
Personally, I do not know how to explain such a phenomenon. This was my
statement. Hence please do not ascribe
On 03.09.2011 11:00 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
I have summarized my answers in respect to that the simulation
technology falls short of the simulation hypothesis at
On 02.09.2011 08:24 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
Well, you have still not explained how books self-assembly
themselves from atoms. This is some problem with your reasoning.
What Occam's Razor says about the
I have summarized my answers in respect to that the simulation
technology falls short of the simulation hypothesis at
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/09/simulation-hypothesis-and-simulation-technology.html
It could be considered as some small empiric case study.
Evgenii
--
You received this
On 02.09.2011 14:31 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
Consider a single carbon atom in a book. The atom follows a
trajectory from where it was one thousand years ago to where it
is in the book today. Do you believe
Aug 2011, at 19:24, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.08.2011 17:11 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
The subject feels he initiates and has control over the
voluntary movement but not the involuntary movement. That's the
difference between them. Both types of movement, however, are
completely
On 02.09.2011 20:07 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2011 12:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
In this series there is a clear statement that there are questions
that we cannot solve, for example if the Universe is eternal or
not. You rely on cause and at the same time on Big Bang. But then
Big
On 01.09.2011 05:14 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
The subject feels he initiates and has control over the
voluntary movement but not the involuntary movement. That's the
difference between them. Both types of
On 01.09.2011 15:00 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
The atoms have to move in order to write the book. They have to
move inside the brain of the author, then his hands have to move,
the keys on the computer keyboard
On 01.09.2011 19:57 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Sep 1, 11:03 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This is where we disagree. If the wetness or carbonic nature of the
brain plays a rôle in our consciousness, this would just mean
On 25.08.2011 12:12 Alberto G.Corona said the following:
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote: .
Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I
think that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus
401 - 500 of 619 matches
Mail list logo
