To the quote of Lee's remark:
I would try Vernumft (which may as well be similarly
inaccurate for 'consciousness'). There were some
German speaking souls(!) who used it quite effectively
G.
I try for'mind':the mentality aspect of the living
complexity which says not much more if 'mentality'
is
Aditya writes
[LC]:
Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
event and observer moment can't really be said to be at
all the same thing.
--- Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell writes
John M. wrote
To Russell's 4 coordinates of (any?) event: how
come
the occurrence (event!) of a 'good idea' in my
mind -
(mind: not a thing, not a place, not
time-restricted)
should have t,x,y,z coordinates?
Hi John,
Le 01-août-05, à 16:57, John M a écrit :
Also simulating menatlity from computer
expressions seems reversing the fact that in comp (AI
etc.) the computer science attempts to simulate
certain and very limited items we already discovered
from our mind.
Except that since Turing,
John M:
snip:)
To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already
HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not.
At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced
thinking community.
John M
I think the name was a play the name of another book
The discovery of the mind by Bruno
[RS]
On 7/31/05, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea
like Aditya has: what is the real difference between an event
and an observer-moment? In trying to
Jesse Mazer writes:
as I said, my idea is
that *all* possible causal patterns qualify as observer-moments, not just
complex ones like ours. And I don't disagree that complex observer-moments
are generally the result of a long process of evolution in the physical
universe, it's just that I
PROTECTED]
To: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea
like Aditya
Russell submits the following as clarifications:
An event is a particular set of coordinates (t,x,y,z) in 4D
spacetime. This is how it is used in GR, anyway.
An observer moment is a set of constraints, or equivalently
information known about the world (obviously at a moment of time).
It
Brent writes
[Lee writes]
[Jesse wrote]
Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
reality is made up of nothing but observer-moments at the most
fundamental level--something like the naturalistic panpsychism
discussed on that webpage I mentioned.
I would not be surprised if there were some sort of duality
relationship (note: mathematical term employed here) between observer
moment and event, appropriately defined, however it is unclear how one
might adjust the definitions I gave to illuminate such a duality.
Cheers
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 02:00:30PM -0700, John M wrote:
I salute Lee's new subject designation.
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond
Russell writes
John M. wrote
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond such restrictions.
I agree: that is, so long as we can
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 08:09:46PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
I am surprised about that!
Lee wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the author
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[LC]:
Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
event and observer moment can't really be said to be at
all the same thing. (Folks like Russell
Jesse writes
I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
because your brain is a part of an obviously successful
survival machine designed by evolution.
Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
reality is made up of nothing but observer-moments
Lee Corbin wrote:
Jesse writes
I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
because your brain is a part of an obviously successful
survival machine designed by evolution.
Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
reality is made up of nothing
sorry for the misaddressing...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jul 30, 2005 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
To: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the risk of barging in once again,
Since there is nothing
Dear Jesse and Lee,
I must interject!
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World
Lee Corbin wrote:
snip
[LC]
The disagreement I
Le 30-juil.-05, à 17:18, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :
I think Mazer has put this across quite nicely, so I pause here.
I agree with you and Jesse Mazer. Except that Jesse points on a
speculation on the observer-moments, where I find enough to speculate
on the truth on the comp
Le 30-juil.-05, à 08:53, Lee Corbin a écrit :
When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice
have of the world, we can easily see their limitations.
What would we think of mice who attempted to found all
of reality on mouse observer moments?
Give them time! Mice will probably discover
that, but it makes a little sense to me.
Perhaps there is something in Sam Johnson's quip afterall.
Many Regards
Chris.
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005
Aditya writes
At the risk of barging in once again,
Oh, please forget about all that! No one should apologize for it. Ever.
I (Lee) had written
When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice
have of the world, we can easily see their limitations.
What would we think of mice who
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:29 AM
To: Lee Corbin
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
On 29-Jul-05, you wrote:
Jesse writes
I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
because
Lee Corbin wrote:
Chris writes
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception
is
indirect, and therefore the existence of a material cause for those
perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's
razor.
Jesse writes
Lee Corbin wrote:
Chris writes
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show
that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existence of a
material cause for those perceptions is an
unjustified inference in
Lee Corbin wrote:
Jesse writes
Lee Corbin wrote:
Chris writes
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show
that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existence of a
material cause for those perceptions is an
Le 27-juil.-05, à 20:11, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Build carefully upon what is simple and knowable, and keep the
wild theories to a minimum. Even then, the world is hardly
simple, but at least we've got a chance.
I agree completely.
In other words, dualists and materialists contravene
Please see interleaved in the remnants of the text
below
John Mikes
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 27-juil.-05, à 20:11, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Build carefully upon what is simple and knowable,
and keep the
wild theories to a minimum. Even then, the world
is hardly
know directly. Perception.
In otherwords, dualists and materialists contravene Occam, not idealists. i
dont see how Johnson refuted that.
regards.
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: What We Can Know About the World
Date: Tue
regards.
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: What We Can Know About the World
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:19:49 -0700
Stathis writes
When 99% of the human race use the word reality, they mean
the world outside their skins
@eskimo.com
Subject: What We Can Know About the World
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:19:49 -0700
Stathis writes
When 99% of the human race use the word reality, they mean
the world outside their skins.
If you sacrifice our common understanding of reality, then
you'll find yourself in a hole
Chris writes
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existence of a material cause for those
perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's razor.
The argument that
refuted Berkley. I cant see
how he did.
many regards
Chris.
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:11:33 -0700
Chris writes
Samuel Johnson did refute
Stathis writes
When 99% of the human race use the word reality, they mean
the world outside their skins.
If you sacrifice our common understanding of reality, then
you'll find yourself in a hole out of which you'll never climb.
Yes, but what *is* this 3D world we can all stub our toe
38 matches
Mail list logo
