On 27 May 2017 at 16:02, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.​
>

​That was me actually. I'm afraid this has happened only recently because
Bruno had lost his ability to post directly. Hopefully that will sort
itself out and posting can return to some sort of normalcy.​ Anyway, your
excerption fails to give sufficient weight to the burden of my point. Which
was that it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when
progress seems to be blocked for what appear to be fundamental explanatory
reasons. Of course any theory offered in replacement must subsume what has
succeeded up to that point. This is the sort of thing that happens quite
normally when one theory replaces another in the same domain, as for
example Einsteins's did with Newton's. In the present case we're not
contemplating anything quite so completed as that. What is nevertheless
worth taking seriously is the possibility of shedding light on areas that
have so far been opaque to the explanatory tools of the physical sciences.


>
>
>>
>> *​" ​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.
>

​Certainly, but again you omitted an important part of what I said. Which
is that it is illegitimate to set an absolute​ limit to understanding
purely on the basis of what is considered an allowable mode of enquiry. A
different mode of enquiry may well allow us to take a quite different view
of its 'brute facts'.

  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.
>

​Oh dear. Alas, there are far too many unacknowledged assumptions in that
slogan to gain any understanding of what is actually being claimed.

David
​

> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to