Search results

I was speaking with a member of the forum in chat the other day, and he was convinced that reason was a calm, pleasant manner of speaking with an intellectual opponent. I was admittedly concerned. Since a dictionary was referenced, I imagine few people will disagree. I was, however, more...

aren't dictionaries handy

I asked a person this in chat, and I'm curious to know what others think. Thanks for your input.

We all deal with it. http://www.youtube.com/user/veritas48

(shrugs) I've tried to be clear. Here's a summary: Physicality has a compliment. CA has two necessary parts: a propagating seed and unchanging rules by which the seed propagates. The unchanging rules of propagation are the compliment the dynamic aspect of reality. You suppose the rules must also...

what epistemological considerations would you deem prudent to the conversation, then?

@mirandansa well said.

Keep the speculation about my intentions to yourself? Thanks. The CA model supposes the laws are unchanging, localized instructions that propagate cells as an internal clock ticks away. The rules are "absolute" because they stay the same throughout the course of the system. They "govern...

Because the implication is that causality is governed by an absolute. As I said, though this is an apparent duality between "seed" and "rule", it is not from this that I suppose "dualism" in the manner you've been trying to get at. The video was speaking about free will in concert with...

Then impugn my integrity, if it never occurred to you to simply ask me. But indeed, I already explained.

I told you, I do not derive dualism from cellular automata. That is your conjecture. Again, there is a misunderstanding here. Like I said, my discussion of dualism can only come after a discussion of free will, not Wolfram.

My discussion of dualism in my response to WayOfTheBastard has little to do with the apparent duality of the rules and seeds of cellular automata. Still, there seems to be some misunderstanding besides this. As Wolfram said at the beginning of his lecture on "A New Science," nobody is...

The questions here are not assuming the full range of possibilities. I made a video on this, if you're interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXEO31lbZsc you can skip to about 1:15

Not logical causality. Rational causality. Reason speaks to a string of inferences, logic speaks to rules of inference.

Such is not a tautology. One needn't assume physical causality (such as, the antibiotic "caused" the bacterium to weaken and die) is the same as, say, rational causality (such as, a premise that "causes" a conclusion to be false). If we assume lawfulness in reason, we can still speak about...

Phenomena that are not material are anything irrevocably beyond empirical study. I agree the conversation ought to be concerned with sub-atomic events at this point. The important thing, perhaps, is to acknowledge that the new turn in particle physics is one that forces us to rethink things...

Cheers to E-Prime, and thanks for the inter-language perspective.　よろしく御願いします！

I do not believe it is proper to assume gnosticism or agnosticism are mere adjectives, or qualifiers for the theist/atheist label. Gnosticism is simply the assertion that God, if such exists, is knowable. Agnosticism simply asserts that God, if such exists, is not knowable. The...

Acosmism denies the reality of the universe. A-Theism, even assuming a "without" or "un" is still a stance against God's existence. It is often assumed that "theism" is "belief in God", but belief is an epistemological claim, as in gnosticism (not referring to the religion, with a capital "G")...

That might help bring things back on subject. I was a monist, materialist, hard-determinist.