On 14 Jul 2014, at 20:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2014 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2014 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then, look at my preceding post to you. I don't know for Tegmark,
but computationalism excels in differentiating and
On 7/14/2014 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2014 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then, look at my preceding post to you. I don't know for Tegmark, but computationalism
excels in differentiating and relating the different sort of existence: onto
On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2014 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then, look at my preceding post to you. I don't know for Tegmark,
but computationalism excels in differentiating and relating the
different sort of existence: ontological, epistemological,
observational,
On 7/13/2014 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then, look at my preceding post to you. I don't know for Tegmark, but computationalism
excels in differentiating and relating the different sort of existence: ontological,
epistemological, observational, communicable or not, theological, etc.
Lis
On 7/13/2014 8:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That being said, I tend to become a postmodernist when the word "explanation" shows up.
I see science as pure description. I find it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing
"explanation" where none is given. People say to kids: the moon orbits the earth
On 12 Jul 2014, at 21:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me
about something I'm interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:51 AM, LizR wrote:
> On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>> You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
>> something I'm interested in finding out more about.
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 23:
On 13 July 2014 17:18, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> If you can explain what "axiomatic" means, I think you'll find it on
>> the circle. For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to
>> human beings, which
On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
If you can explain what "axiomatic" means, I think you'll find it on the circle.
For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to human beings, which
could be explain
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb wrote:
> If you can explain what "axiomatic" means, I think you'll find it on the
> circle. For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to
> human beings, which could be explained in terms of physics, biology, and
> evolution (c.f. William S. Coope
On 7/12/2014 7:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
something I'm
interested in finding out more about.
On 2 Ju
On 7/12/2014 7:51 PM, LizR wrote:
Sorry, as yet I don't see how it can work. It isn't a virtuous circle (which is
generally taken to mean something like compound interest working on something which was
generated, originally, by some other process) - it's a vicious circle, i.e. one that
pretend
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 7:53 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On 13 July 2014 08:27,
On 13 July 2014 08:27, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Or… perhaps it could it be like the mythical snake eating its tail.
>
> By, invoking retro-causality
>
Brent isn't invoking retro-causality, but circular explanation. As he was
at pains
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
> something I'm interested in finding out more about.
>
> On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb wr
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR
2014-07-12 22:01 GMT+02:00 John Mikes :
> Quentin, I appreciate your sequencing:
> "*maths => physics => consciousness => human maths"*
> except for the obvious question that arose in my (agnostic) mind:
> what OTHER "maths" can we, humans think of with our (human) minds that
> would not qual
Quentin, I appreciate your sequencing:
"*maths => physics => consciousness => human maths"*
except for the obvious question that arose in my (agnostic) mind:
what OTHER "maths" can we, humans think of with our (human) minds that
would not qualify as "human maths"? Even - as I believe - Bruno l
2014-07-12 21:17 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
> On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
> something I'm interested in finding out more about.
>
> On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb wrot
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about something I'm
interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
something I'm interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR wrote:
> On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>>
21 matches
Mail list logo
