I don't think 1000 monkeys could type Shakespeare in 1000 years. I think the proper example is that is a monkey were given an infinite amount of time ...
These possibilities are derived from a particular actual state which is constructed in the laboratory, or wherever. The point is that any set of possi...
As soon as someone shows me the way around this problem, I'm fully prepared to ditch the idea of God. I don't want to believe in God, and I never did ...
"Time Reborn" is a good book, well worth the time to read it. Smolin explains how the applicability of the laws of physics is limited by the confines ...
I don't mind inconsistency in a philosopher's writing. Many start writing when they are young, and if they maintain an open mind, their thoughts will ...
But apokrisis' position goes a lot further than "it just happened", with the assumption of apeiron and infinite potential. When potential is conceived...
Right, as I demonstrated in that post, if this is Peirce's ontology, it is mistaken. And, it is the mistake of emergentism in general. If you had a di...
No. I'm not happy, this is exactly the position which I criticised in my post, and you still haven't addressed my criticism. You've just restated your...
I agree with this, assuming that we maintain a strict meaning of "experience", as I described earlier. But this allows that we have many feelings whic...
I agree that duration is a construct of memory, it is an empirical concept, but the point of my first post was that this is not the way that time appe...
I am not talking about conceiving of a possible future, I am talking about anticipation. We anticipate the actual future, not possibilities. Possibili...
Still you ramble on... I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but sometimes when a person is so trapped by unreasonable self-conviction that the individual...
Why do you say that no one with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity? According to what you've said here, all one has ...
Yes I agree, strictly speaking, with a proper definition of "experience", our experience is only of the past. However, as living beings we also antici...
I think your op misses the most important aspect of time. Time exists as the separation, or division, between past and future. The difference which ex...
The inquiry of "why existence", when asked, is quickly exposed as nonsensical. The real metaphysical inquiry asks "why is there what there is, rather ...
That's right, so you are assuming as a premise, the existence of something whose nature is such, that the thing is unintelligible. Not only is this bl...
It's backwards because it doesn't rely on emergence? As I've demonstrated to you, over and over again, in a multitude of different ways, emergence is ...
No, freedom and constraint only actual exist in relation to something else, a thing which is either free or constrained. Otherwise you are just referr...
That's your great mistake, how you conflate final cause with formal cause, as if they are two facets of the same thing. Past actualities, which are th...
I see this as the obvious problem. We are talking semiotics, which implies semantics and meaning. You appear to be assuming a type of semiotics which ...
In apokrisis' ontology, the "it" which reads signs or creates them, bringing substance into existence, is a feature of the vague infinite potential of...
Aside from what you say, that this is mistaken attribution, the point I'm trying to make to apokrisis is that this false attribution gets us no furthe...
See how these two go together, believing that choice is an illusion, and not doing a damn thing? If you're waiting for the universe to make you do som...
So this is the semiotics of dissipative structures? The water sees the channel as a symbol, and interprets the meaning of this sign as "go this way". ...
Perhaps you could explain this, because it appears to be the missing link which serves as the foundation of your metaphysics. How are sign relations i...
I don't see how "bootstrapping" is an appropriate term here. To assume bootstrapping is to take a physicalist premise and begin with this prejudice. W...
OK, so I understand that you assume two distinct types of constraints, the constraints which act on material potential causing substantial being, and ...
Let me see if I've got this straight then. If I understand correctly, substantial being exists only as the result of constraints. So semiotic informat...
You have everything backward, as I've told you on numerous occasions. "Energy" according to it's conceptual structure is necessarily the property of s...
So it's either take it for granted, or claim that it comes about by magic (take some dissipative structure and add some semiotics)? I choose neither o...
I read this as magic. Just stir in some semiotics, (the capacity to communicate), and bingo, you have a living being. Where would this semiotics come ...
You have a belief that it rained recently. This belief is supported by your perception that the ground is wet, along with a logical principle such as ...
Notice though, how you present the position in the op. You claim that Watts wants to talk about "how" God produces the universe. You do not ask "why" ...
No, evidence is apprehended as being correlated with the belief which it is evidence for. So you have two things wrong here. First, the thing which th...
The reason why one cannot reason back from God to the universe is that the creation of the universe by God is a freely willed act. The nature of the f...
All this indicates is that I know something which you don't, so you're excluded from the "we" in my statement. Do you know about the existence of idea...
Why do you describe this event as "non-living matter became animate"? Why would you not describe this in the way that biological science actually unde...
That's a ridiculous definition of "evidence". Evidence supports a belief it does not render it impossible that the belief is false. That's why to conv...
My point, is that the evidence, your perception of a tree, never provides the basis for a conclusion which beyond the possibility of doubt. If you exc...
Why would you class all human beings together as "extremely reliable tree-detector"? What if all my life I've been calling shrubs by the name "tree"? ...
Did you click the link and read the article? The simplicity of a lipid. This argument goes two ways. It is impossible to have a simple understanding w...
I assume you mean all possible instances of p's falsehood. Without detecting, and negating all possibility of p's falsehood, you retain the possibilit...
How can you claim that knowing that p consists of anything other than excluding the possibility that p is false? If you can know that p, without exclu...
I'm not really familiar with client centred therapy at all. I don't read much psychology. But the honesty which I am referring to is honesty on the pa...
I don't think that this is true, and that's why I reject "survival" as central to evolution. I think that simple single-celled organisms could continu...
Comments