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 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,
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:
On 13 July 2014 17:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb 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
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:51 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb 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 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 lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb
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 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.
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 lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb
2014-07-12 21:17 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
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 lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July
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 leaves
2014-07-12 22:01 GMT+02:00 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
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
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 wrote
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb 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 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2
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 to
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, 'Chris de
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
On 7/12/2014 7:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
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
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb 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 explained in terms of physics, biology, and
evolution (c.f.
On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
