I think my previous email address ended up on a spam list or
something, because all of my posts were blocked.
Trying a new address.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
>> On 7/21/2010 8:31 AM, Allen Rex wrote:
>>
>> But, this belief isn't entailed by methodological naturalism.
On 21 Jul 2010, at 20:17, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/21/2010 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"logic" is a confusing term. Informally "non logic" = error,
madness, pain, ...
To fight against logic is dramatic when you see how people accept
so easily conclusion of invalid inference (like in t
On 7/21/2010 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jul 2010, at 12:43, Allen Rex wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Are you saying that the book provides evidences that we are not Turing
emulable?
As far as I know, Cooper doesn’t state his position on this question
Hmmm. Interesting. Part 2 made it, but not part one.
Part 1:
> You never think about how to test and potentially falsify your theories do
> you. Which makes these discussions fruitless.
>
> Brent
Did you stop reading there??? It got better! Especially once I got
past the Cooper quotes.
So
Hmmm. Something about this email keeps getting it blocked. Fifth
try, breaking it into two parts:
Part 2:
And the same goes for any metaphysical theory that claims that our
conscious experiences are caused by more fundamental rule-governed
processes.
No matter what the fundamental components
On 20 Jul 2010, at 12:43, Allen Rex wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Are you saying that the book provides evidences that we are not
Turing
emulable?
As far as I know, Cooper doesn’t state his position on this question.
Or that the prime character of the n
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Rex,
> you wrote something great:
A rare compliment! Thanks!
>
> "Rationality is correlated with survival. You are rational, and you
> survive.
>
> But to say that rationality causes survival?
>
> What if rationality and survival are both
Rex,
you wrote something great:
*"Rationality is correlated with survival. You are rational, and you
survive.
But to say that rationality causes survival?
What if rationality and survival are both caused by the same
underlying processes?..."*
**
My habituel question when neurologists assign tho
On 7/20/2010 3:43 AM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are you saying that the book provides evidences that we are not Turing
emulable?
As far as I know, Cooper doesn’t state his position on this question.
Or that the prime character of the
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Are you saying that the book provides evidences that we are not Turing
> emulable?
As far as I know, Cooper doesn’t state his position on this question.
> Or that the prime character of the number 17 evolves in time/space?
So I don’t thi
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> On 7/16/2010 8:51 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
>>
>> So, he seems to imply that initial conditions and causal laws must
>> give rise to rational actors. But as he says, there is no independent
>> standard of rationality.
>
> Yes he does. Rationalit
You agree, but you argue because you disagree on the meanings of words. All
misunderstandings arise from differing ideas of the meanings of words. Words
only have meaning whrn you have agreed on the meaning in advance. By learning
through shared experience. It's the symbol grounding problem.
Yo
On 19 Jul 2010, at 01:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/18/2010 1:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Assuming physicalism, the causal laws of our universe applied to a
suitable set of initial conditions will, in time, exhibit features
that we categorize as “evolutionary”. Some of these evolutionary
On 7/18/2010 1:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/18/2010 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jul 2010, at 05:51, Allen Rex wrote:
The thesis posited by the book(*) is a bigger problem for Bruno's
theory that mine.
(*)c.f. "The Evolution of
R
> On 18 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Unless the W. Cooper's book refutes the movie graph argument, for
> example by justifying Jack Mallah's claim that consciousness stop
> supervening physically on a machine in case a physical piece of the
> machine, which is supposed to have no phy
On 18 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/18/2010 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jul 2010, at 05:51, Allen Rex wrote:
The thesis posited by the book(*) is a bigger problem for Bruno's
theory that mine.
(*)c.f. "The Evolution of
Reason" by William S. Cooper.
Are you sa
On 7/18/2010 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jul 2010, at 05:51, Allen Rex wrote:
The thesis posited by the book(*) is a bigger problem for Bruno's
theory that mine.
(*)c.f. "The Evolution of
Reason" by William S. Cooper.
Are you saying that the book provides evidences that we are n
On 17 Jul 2010, at 05:51, Allen Rex wrote:
The thesis posited by the book(*) is a bigger problem for Bruno's
theory that mine.
(*)c.f. "The Evolution of
Reason" by William S. Cooper.
Are you saying that the book provides evidences that we are not Turing
emulable?
Or that the prime ch
On 7/16/2010 8:51 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
And in either case the counter argument is the same, c.f. "The Evolution of
Reason" by William S. Cooper.
Maybe. But it’s not a very good counter argument. Actually, if his
thesis is true, I
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> And in either case the counter argument is the same, c.f. "The Evolution of
> Reason" by William S. Cooper.
Maybe. But it’s not a very good counter argument. Actually, if his
thesis is true, I think it helps my argument more than it hurts
On 7/16/2010 1:26 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
If Physicalism is true, then the belief in Physicalism can’t be
rationally justified.
If physicalism is true, then our beliefs and experiences are a result
of the universe’s initial conditions and causal laws (which may have a
probabilistic aspe
If Physicalism is true, then the belief in Physicalism can’t be
rationally justified.
If physicalism is true, then our beliefs and experiences are a result
of the universe’s initial conditions and causal laws (which may have a
probabilistic aspect).
Therefore, assuming physicalism, we don’t prese
22 matches
Mail list logo
