Due to the impenetrable tangle of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes that is epidemic on this list there is no way to tell who but somebody wrote:
*"The point is to recognise that at a certain stage it is no longer > scientific to ignore what is incapable of further explanation even with a > heretofore supremely adequate intellectual toolkit. That's Bruno's whole > point really."* Yes that is Bruno's whole point, and that's why he's wrong. I would maintain it is supremely scientific to ignore what is incapable of further explanation even with a supremely adequate intellectual toolkit . I would insist there is nothing else a logical person could do. > > *" Statements, or in effect dogmas, such as the position you reiterate > above to the effect that there is an absolute limit to understanding"* Turing, Godel, Chaitin, and quantum physicists have already told us there is a absolute limit to understanding, but even without them we would still have to face one very important question, does the chain of "how did that happen?" questions come to a end or does it not? If is doesn't end then there can never be complete understanding because there will always be more unanswered questions, if it does end then eventually you'll come to a brute fact. There is every indication that "consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed" is a brute fact and it's pointless to ask how did that happen. And that's why armchair philosophers love to spin consciousness theories on the internet, it's easy because no theory can be proved or disproved; and that's why armchair philosophers never spin intelligence theories, that's hard. Successful intelligence theorists aren't in armchairs, they're in Silicon Valley. I was able to figure out it was Bruno Marchal who said the following: *> Yes. John Clark proceeds like that too. Saying "peepee" when we > introduce the needed pov distinctions.* And John Clark will continue to say "peepee" when Bruno Marchal insists that idiotic questions like "what one and only one thing will happen to *YOU* after *YOU *walk into a *YOU* duplicating machine and *YOU* becomes 2 *YOUS*?" are areas for legitimate scientific research. > *> It is a theorem of machine theology* And John Clark will continue to say: " Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. " John K Clark -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
