On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:24:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I don't feel so much cloaked in the Popperian view. It has been been > refuted by John Case, notably (showing that Popper was doing science in his > own term, paradoxically).ime > > > Bruno - how do you mean this? > > > In the paradoxical way, as showing that popper has a point, but that it > should not be taken too much seriously. "0+x = x" is hardly refutable, yet > a *very interesting and fundamental* "scientific" idea. > > > > You have consistently defined science in popper terms? > > > It is mine, or Socrates one. Popper insists rightly on this, but you can > see this as common sense. This has not prevented Popper to take some > physicalism for granted, though, and Popper is far from being the most > Popperian scientist. But then I have rarely seen a philosopher following > his own philosophy. > > > OK, this time I'm going to go and find you untold quotes of you referring > to popper, in your papers, in your talks and so on. Saying you accept > popper. I'd do the computer is consciousness thing at the same time. > > > ? > I accept Popper for a sufficient criterion of "being reasonably > scientific", but I find it part of science and 3p discourses, and first > person plural one, since Socrates. It is just nice that Popper insists on > that criterion. > > > > > > > > > > > > You've defined theory in conjectural terms. > > > Theory, or just belief. the theory that you have parents is a theory. You > need to assume it without proof. the same for the existence of sun and moon. > > > > You've defined the terms for evaluation and criteria for acceptance - of a > theory - multidimensionally in popper terms in line with dimensions of > popperian philosophy itself. You've rejected or said you don't understand, > wherever and whenever I have spoken as if in reference to something other > than popper. You've claimed something is science because testable, and > testable as falsifiable, and all of this nothing added or subtracted from > boiler plate popperianism. > > > If something is testable, it is science. But if something is not testable, > it is not necessarily bad science. > > > well you have the same views as popper on anything philosophy of science > I've seen. > > > Nice! But I am not that sure. > He wrote a curious book in philosophy of mind, with Eccles. That was a > sort of attempt to rescued dualism in a non mechanist theory. Poorly > convincing, but rather honest and naive (so I appreciate, even if I am not > convinced). > Then Popper missed badly the Everett QM, (not to mention the comp > arithmetic), and developed his "propensity theory", which in my opinion, > illustrates an incorrect use of the analytical tools, like in the error of > logicism and positivism. > > Falsifiability might be more a criterion of interestingness, and an help > for clarity, in place the falsifiability is out the possible practice (like > with String Theory according to some, (but not with comp)). > > > > so it's the same cloak whatever :O) > > > ? > > I am not sure if I have any clue where we would differ, nor if that has > any relevance with the reasoning I suggest, to formulate a problem, and > reduce one problem into another.ia > Well, I do differ in general on the view that Science - why it worked - has been understood. I also differ on the idea that philosophy - which is pre-scientific or non-scientific - can explain science. The problem is that logically....just the act of doing philosophy on science, pre-assumes that philosophy *can* explain science. I mean....do you really think that if, as it turned out, philosophy cahnnot explain science, that doing philosophy on science would actually reveal that? no! the philosopher would find an explanation. So just doing philosophy on science pre-assumes the answer to the question. There's two camps Bruno. One is that science was just an extension of philosophy, among other things. Almost everyone is in this camp, whether explicitly or by default. The other camp is that something fundamental, and profound, happened with science, that is extremely mysterious and unresolved. Membership of either camp is an act of faith. I'm in the second camp. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one.
> You do look unhappy with something, apparently related to comp, or to the > UDA, or to AUDA? > Absolutely not. I've recently concluded my personal work on the wider matter. It's been hugely valuable. Talking to you has been a part of it. I would like to give you something back...maybe I feel frustrated that I can't get you to see what I am saying. But never unhappy with you or your work. I'm very appreciative that you talk to me at all. I'm not careful with what I say. I touch type about 100wpm and rarely check what I said before posting. I'm sorry if that is conveying an impression of not being happy. It isn't the case I assure you. If I was unhappy, or I thought you were, I'd leave you alone. You don't owe me anything...I'd consider it very rude to put emotional shit onto you. > I just try sincerely to understand your point. > I know > > > > > > > > > > > You've acknowledged popperianism as the best explanation in various ways, > in various contexts, in various places. > > > Just an interesting and important feature of science, but not as a > definitive criterion. I don't think this exist. > > > > Most of my lines of argument that you typically return a blank on involve > a criticism of assumptions you are building in, that assume popper as true? > > > Partially true. I can use it when I talk to Popperian, but I am not that > much Popperian. > > > > I don't remember you acknowledging a single point as even understood. I > don't remember you changing a major inbuilt assumption of popper, some of > which I've pointed at agaain and again, some of which you were explicitly > putting at the centre of a theory. You didn't complain at the popper > linkage....on the contrary the indicate fun has been you acknowledged and > applied popper faithfully and regarded doing so as a virtue. > > > OK. > > > > > Now you say you regard popper as refuted. > > > Only if you take him literally, which I do not. I just do science, not > philosophy of science. > > > > > > Did I just refute popper in your view? > > > Why? No. I don't see it. John Case did it, at least in theory: > > , > Case was philosophy standard....mine is science standard. Would you mind > actually reading it please..it's only a few lines in the middle? > > > > ? > Case is both mathematic standard, and theoretical computer science > standard. > These aren't the parts that matter. It's possible to use math in philosophy. It's possible to do philosophy of computing. The part that matters is the analysis of the philosophy and the nature of the refutation. I didn't write the refutation to be a proper standard of argument. I wrote for you....because I thought you'd get it. > > > Could you give me which few lines in the middle? > Not now...but I'll come back to you about it in the near future...maybe in private if you allow it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
