Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 31.07.2012 01:05 Russell Standish said the following: ... With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being. To this end, one has first to define the sense of life formally. The goal to survive is clear b

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote: With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal choices, There is no rational reason to pick life over death, I happen to prefer life but others have, or rather had, a different opinion and there is no disputing matters o

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: > So you understand 'will'. > Yes, I want to do some things and don't want to do other things. > Do you also understand 'coercion'? > Yes, sometimes things prevent me from doing what I want to do. John K Clark -- You received this message b

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 31 Jul 2012, at 13:37, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm not clear on why you emphasize incomplete information? What would constitute complete information? and why how would that obviate 'free will'. Is it coercive? I agree with Russell's answer

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I'm not clear on why you emphasize incomplete information? What would >> constitute complete information? and why how would that obviate 'free will'. >> Is it coercive? > > > I agree with Russell's answer. If the information was complete (w

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 28-juil.-12, à 18:46, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people. That is not true, my goal has two parts: 1)

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > religious people defined it [free will] often by the ability to choose consciously And those very same religious people define consciousness as the ability to have free will, and around and around w

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/30/2012 4:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Free-will is an informal term use in many informal setting. religious people defined it often by the ability to choose consciously between doing bad

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >Free-will is an informal term use in many informal setting. > >religious people defined it often by the ability to choose > >consciously between doing bad things or not, and people from the > >

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/30/2012 10:42 AM, John Clark wrote: > The "Free" prefix is just an emphasis, and I don't take it too much seriously. You say that but I don't believe it and I don't think even you really believe it, otherwise you'd just say "will" means you want to do some things and don't want to

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/30/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 28-juil.-12, à 18:46, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people. That is not true, my goal has two parts: 1) Figuring out what you mean by "free will".

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > religious people defined it [free will] often by the ability to choose > consciously And those very same religious people define consciousness as the ability to have free will, and around and around we go. > and people from the law can invoke it

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 28-juil.-12, à 18:46, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 28, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: > You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people. That is not true, my goal has two parts: 1) Figuring out what you mean by "free will". Free-will is an informal term use in many

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

2012/7/29 John Clark > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > Is it just the uncertainty due to computational time (which is what >> I.J. Good seems to mean) in consciousness, or is it uncertainty due to >> unconscious processes which may spring into consciousness and change you

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: > Is it just the uncertainty due to computational time (which is what I.J. > Good seems to mean) in consciousness, or is it uncertainty due to > unconscious processes which may spring into consciousness and change your > (conscious) mind about whic

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/28/2012 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote: > It is relatively random in the first person perspective, like the first person indeterminacy, So all you're saying is that in this thing you like to call "first person indeterminacy" the outcome of the simple multiplication problem 74* 836

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people. That is not true, my goal has two parts: 1) Figuring out what you mean by "free will". 2) Figuring out if what you say about "free will" is true. I have never completed the first go

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 27-juil.-12, à 17:02, John Clark a écrit : On Fri, Jul 27, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> You just evade the definition of free will that I gave to you, >>You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that. I'd need to use scientific notation to count the number of definitions of

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> You just evade the definition of free will that I gave to you, >>> >> >> >>You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that. I'd need to >> use scientific notation to count the number of definitions of the "free >> will" noise I've heard ove

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 24-juil.-12, à 18:10, John Clark a écrit : On Tue, Jul 24, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: > You just evade the definition of free will that I gave to you, You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that. I'd need to use scientific notation to count the number of definitions of the

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You just evade the definition of free will that I gave to you, You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that. I'd need to use scientific notation to count the number of definitions of the "free will" noise I've heard over the last few mont

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The fact that consciousness and free will can be justified or explained, in some way, in a deterministic framework, does not make those concepts referring to something unreal. True. Unicorns and Harry Potter are unreal but the words r

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The fact that consciousness and free will can be justified or explained, > in some way, in a deterministic framework, does not make those concepts > referring to something unreal. True. Unicorns and Harry Potter are unreal but the words re

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 22-juil.-12, à 20:45, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/22/2012 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their excommunication and shout from th

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/22/2012 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops "Good riddance to bad rubbish!". T

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 21-juil.-12, à 23:54, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/21/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 22:30, John Clark a écrit : On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what they preach

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 21-juil.-12, à 23:48, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/21/2012 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 18:00, meekerdb a écrit : Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit : Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they verify, with B fo

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops "Good riddance to bad rubbish!". Things are not that Black and White. The chu

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 21-juil.-12, à 17:29, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: >> so we end up making no choice at all or we make a choice based on nothing, in other words at random. > I don't believe we can make choice at random. Fine, I don't think that's true but as far as th

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/21/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 22:30, John Clark a écrit : On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what they preach to their congregation on Sunday, if they even hi

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/21/2012 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 18:00, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/19/2012 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit : Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly b

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > My favorite catholic theologians has eventually been excommunicated > indeed, and got professional problems, And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops "Good riddance to b

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> so we end up making no choice at all or we make a choice based on >> nothing, in other words at random. >> > > > I don't believe we can make choice at random. Fine, I don't think that's true but as far as this discussion goes it wouldn't matter if i

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 19-juil.-12, à 22:30, John Clark a écrit : On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what they preach to their congregation on Sunday, if they even hinted at such a thing they'd be excommunica

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 19-juil.-12, à 18:56, John Clark a écrit : On Thu, Jul 19, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: Complete information is NEVER available, That is false. usually we make choice with (relative) complete information. I want tea, and I do have tea, I know the price, etc. but there is ALWAYS enoug

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 19-juil.-12, à 18:00, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/19/2012 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit : Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they verify, with B for "believes": B~g and Bm. Science is or should be

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 19-juil.-12, à 15:56, R AM a écrit : On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-juil.-12, à 15:28, R AM a écrit : On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I gave a definition of compatibilist free-will which is not "without coercion". I define free-wi

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Most catholic theologians have already abandoned the idea of an > omniscient and omnipotent being, Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what they preach to their congregation on Sunday, if they

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 18.07.2012 22:26 meekerdb said the following: On 7/18/2012 12:21 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 18.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following: On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century at

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > I define free-will as the ability to make willing-full choice in absence > of complete information Complete information is NEVER available, but there is ALWAYS enough information to make a choice OR there is not enough information to make a choice; s

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/19/2012 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-juil.-12, ą 20:48, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/18/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let me be the proposition that Matter (primitive matter) exists. Then, by the most comm

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 18-juil.-12, à 21:08, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in objective evolutionary terms. You mean the one that squelched Greek science

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 18-juil.-12, à 15:28, R AM a écrit : > > >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I gave a definition of compatibilist free-will which is not "without > coercion". I define free-will as the ability to make willing

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/18/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let me be the proposition that Matter (primitive matter) exists. Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they verif

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/18/2012 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Not for the atheists nearby. They vindicate that the believe that there is no God. You need to distinguish what you mean by "God".  When written capitalized as a proper noun it refers to a person/being who created the world and wants to be obey

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 18-juil.-12, à 19:26, John Clark a écrit : On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If doubt is not productive then it is not reasonable, if a physicist or chemist or biologist or geologist or astronomer doubts "physicalism" then there is nothing more for him to do and he

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 18-juil.-12, à 15:28, R AM a écrit : On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well ...  you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of us have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it, and you do this without making precise that you limit you

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, R AM wrote: > > Dear Bruno, compatibilist free-will is defined as "without coercion". > Metaphisical (non-compatibilist) free-will is a property or ability people > claim to have when making decisions (i.e. they are so abso

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/18/2012 12:21 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 18.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following: On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in objective evolutionary terms

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Sorry. I have noting to learn from this thread. I prefer to discuss other things that I mentioned above that are far more interesting . . 2012/7/18 meekerdb : > On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian >> civilization

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 18.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following: On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in objective evolutionary terms. You mean the one that squelched Greek scie

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in objective evolutionary terms. You mean the one that squelched Greek science (which had to be preserved by the Persians) a

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: Well ... you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of us have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it, and you do this without mak

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/18/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let me be the proposition that Matter (primitive matter) exists. Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they verify, with B for "believes": B~g and Bm. Science is

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/18/2012 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Not for the atheists nearby. They vindicate that the believe that there is no God. You need to distinguish what you mean by "God". When written capitalized as a proper noun it refers to a person/being who created the world and wants to be obeyed and

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in objective evolutionary terms. 2012/7/14 meekerdb : > On 7/13/2012 4:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > > 2012/7/14 meekerdb >> >> On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > the atheist "scientists" I met, who were probably manipulated (which > makes things more complex) made clear that physicalism is not something you > can reasonably doubt about. If doubt is not productive then it is not reasonable, if a phy

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Well ... you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of > us have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it, and you do > this without making precise that you limit yourself to the non sensical > notion. > >

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 17-juil.-12, à 19:42, John Clark a écrit : On Tue, Jul 17, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: > I feel like you give credit to the definition of theology given by the Roman Church, instead of using the term in its more general sense, which is well illustrated by the non necessary exclusively ch

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 17-juil.-12, à 19:09, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/17/2012 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jul 2012, at 19:37, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2012  Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely bsolutely no reason for doing so, it is calle

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Le 17-juil.-12, à 19:05, Evgenii Rudnyi a écrit : On 17.07.2012 09:54 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 16 Jul 2012, at 21:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... but it looks like that your

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > I feel like you give credit to the definition of theology given by the > Roman Church, instead of using the term in its more general sense, which is > well illustrated by the non necessary exclusively christian history. > I was a firm believer in that

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/17/2012 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jul 2012, at 19:37, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely bsolutely no reason for doing so, it is called "faith".

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 17.07.2012 09:54 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 16 Jul 2012, at 21:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... but it looks like that your motive is also close to the Game of Life. What diffe

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 16 Jul 2012, at 21:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... but it looks like that your motive is also close to the Game of Life. What difference do you see in this respect? With comp, after UD

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 16 Jul 2012, at 19:37, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely bsolutely no reason for doing so, it is called "faith". > Then the danger of cannabis belongs to faith, Yes, absolutely. OK. >

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... but it looks like that your motive is also close to the Game of Life. What difference do you see in this respect? With comp, after UDA, and supposing it is 100% valid, the choice of th

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/16/2012 1:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2012 9:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Interesting. So the unitary evolution of the SWF or state vector is not continuous over its spectrum or what ever it is called ... the cover or span of the basis? It's continuous, but decoherence picks o

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/15/2012 9:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Interesting. So the unitary evolution of the SWF or state vector is not continuous over its spectrum or what ever it is called ... the cover or span of the basis? It's continuous, but decoherence picks out different subspaces which are almost

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely > bsolutely no reason for doing so, it is called "faith". > > > Then the danger of cannabis belongs to faith, > Yes, absolutely. > The definition you give of "theology" seems to me

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:52 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theor

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theorem, it is

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > As far as I understand, theology is about beliefs Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so, it is called "faith". Then the danger of cannabis belongs

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 15:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 06:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another mess

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2012, at 20:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... An interesting question is however, where resu

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/15/2012 2:34 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2012 7:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requi

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: And I need to add that not only is there a persistent "you", there is every possible version of that persistent "you". If there is Identity via fixed point, then there is a "you' involved in some capacity. I wrote there was no unique, persistent

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

Brent (and Stephen): (while I could not 'locate' the relation "on pain of circularity" - whether it is to explain , or ?) I identify an *'observer'* ANY*THING* accepting - A N Y info/relation, while *conscious(*ness) is generalized (IMO) to responding to such in ANY way. I agree with NOT assuming

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> The difference between names and numbers is that numbers can only be >>> augmented in a linear fashion >>> >> >> >> For all numbers x in set X let x=x^2 >> > > > That doesn't augment the variety of number types in set X, > It certainly au

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >If there is Identity via fixed point, then there is a "you' involved in > some capacity. It just might not be belonging to an entity that some people > denote as "John Clark"; it could be "Atom of Hydrogen". This rule applies > to anything

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > Could you tell us what you mean by "third parties" and "others"? Second parties. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send ema

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 7:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires the prior existence of the "you" to

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 10:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires the prior existence of the "you" to s

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires the prior existence of the "you" to select it. The observer (you here) effectively

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires the prior existence of the "you" to select it. The observer (you here) effectively is the measure via a self-selection

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 1:41 PM, John Clark wrote: Responsibility is a function of how much a third party believes you should be rewarded or punished for your actions, subjectivity is involved but not your subjectivity because your responsibility is determined by others and not by you. Could you tel

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > you seem to believe only in the post 523 occidental vocabulary. > Yeah, I can't tell you the number of times that darned post 523 occidental vocabulary of mine has gotten me into big trouble. I'm thinking of joining Post Occidental Vocabulary Anonymou

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first person view accesses nu

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first person view accesses nu

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14.07.2012 11:52 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first person view

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > As far as I understand, theology is about beliefs Theology is about believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so, it is called "faith". Theologians say this is a wonderful virtue and I can understand perfectly why a human

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 06:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this respect? If yes, how? If you're

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/14/2012 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2012, at 20:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... An interesting question is however, where resulting visual mental concepts are located. I find

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 5:52:33 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > > On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: > >> > >> On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>> > >>> If to speak about your

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first person view accesses numbers and mathematical objects. Like a dig

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first person view accesses numbers and mathematical objects. Like a digital machine, which can access numbers encoded in

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 10:26 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 13 Jul 2012, at 20:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... An interesting question is however, wh

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14 Jul 2012, at 06:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this respect? If yes, how? If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminat

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 14.07.2012 10:26 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 13 Jul 2012, at 20:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... An interesting question is however, where resulting visual mental concepts are located.

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 13 Jul 2012, at 21:33, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea but not a word; > Logicians work axiomatically or semi-axiomatically. If an idea/ theory seems absurd, we make the minimal change t

<    1   2   3   4   >