subject:"Re\: Peepee"

Re: Peepee

2017-05-28 Thread John Clark

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:40 PM, David Nyman  wrote:


>> > 
>> And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
>> don't you understand.
>>
>
> It is tedious to ask you again to reconsider your use of words about
> whose application we clearly disagree rather fundamentally.
>

And now I ask for the fifth time, which specific words are you referring
to?

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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-28 Thread David Nyman

On 28 May 2017 at 18:10, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman 
> wrote:
>
> >> 
>> I ask again, which word didn't you understand?
>>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording
>> conceals.
>>
>
> And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
> don't you understand.
>

It is tedious to ask you again to reconsider your use of words about
whose application we clearly disagree rather fundamentally. There have been
very extensive discussions in this list on precisely this topic, all of
which in your own case have pretty much run into the sand. These selfsame
issues are also extensively covered in the literature. Consequently I don't
feel continuing in that vein would serve much purpose here.

David.

>
>
>> > 
>> The problem is that this wording begs the very questions for which the
>> answer is sought.
>>
>
> I don't think there is any way you could be more vague, at this point I
> don't even know what question you're referring to much less be able to
> defend the answer.
>
> 
>
>  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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-28 Thread John Clark

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> you introduce an ambiguity by eliminating the "1p" precision. [...] You
> eliminate the FPI by eliminating the subject.


But you've completely forgotten IHA.

 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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-28 Thread John Clark

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman  wrote:

>> 
> I ask again, which word didn't you understand?
>
>
>
> > 
> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording conceals.
>

And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
don't you understand.

> > 
> The problem is that this wording begs the very questions for which the
> answer is sought.
>

I don't think there is any way you could be more vague, at this point I
don't even know what question you're referring to much less be able to
defend the answer.

 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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 27 May 2017, at 17:02, John Clark 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.

In fundamental science, if something is beyong explanation, we look  
for an explanation why there is something incapable of explanations,  
especially when we use an hypothesis like Mechanism whic makes  
possible to use mathematical logic and computer science which are full  
of explanation of impossibilities of many different kinds.

 " 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

Not with mechanism. The brute "facts" of mechanism are just RA axioms,  
or equivalent.

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.

You have agreed on all points and definition, but you forget to put  
them together, of when you do like above, you introduce an ambiguity  
by eliminating the "1p" precision.

It just plain obvious to everybody, that when you push on the button,  
you (whoever you become) are in front of a door, which once open, will  
show you one city, not two cities. As you don't die in the process,  
the two you will agree that the question made sense, and they will  
both understand that the first person indeterminacy was real in  
Helsinki.

You eliminate the FPI by eliminating the subject. As you need to do,  
and so you make the point for all people who believes in consciousness  
and can reason with mechanism.

Bruno

> 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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-28 Thread David Nyman

On 28 May 2017 2:09 a.m., "John Clark"  wrote:

On Sat, May 27, 2017  David Nyman  wrote:

>
>> >
>> 
>> Data feels something?
>>
>
> 
> > 
> Yes.
>
>
>
>> 
>> >
>> >>
>> 
>> Data feels something in a way?
>>
>
> 
> > 
> Yes.
>
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive assertion.
>

I'm glad you see what I mean, but unfortunately I don't see what you mean.
You asked questions and I answered them without equivocation to the best
of my ability.


> >
>> >>
>> 
>> When 'it' is being processed?
>>
>
> >> 
> Yes, but I don't understand why that pronoun is hiding inside quotation
> marks, the referent is clear. 
>
>
> > 
> It can't be clear unless you can distinguish data from the particular
> physical relations
>

I point to a tree and then point to the word "tree" written in ink on
paper, and it you are watching this and you are a intelligent person or
computer you get the idea that one is a symbol for the other.



> > 
> there simply is no canonical way of achieving this without the implicit
> assumption of a privileged interpretation from outside the system in
> question.
>

Well yes, but we can go outside the system and so can a computer, we do
have access to information that is not innate to our brain, that's what our
senses are for. If you were as ignorant of the outside world as you were on
the day you were born you wouldn't know anything except pleasure and pain.


> >> 
> Processed by matter that obeys the laws of physics obviously.
>
>
> > 
> And how then is that supposed to produce a distinguishable outcome from
> the straightforward transition from one physical state to another?
>

That not hard to produce because not all physical transformations are
identical just as not all ideas are identical; so they can match up. When
the electrical contacts under the "7" and the "+" and the "2" key closes a
current forms that lights up a LED next to the "9" symbol, but when the 3,
+.and 5 key is depressed a different physical current forms and a different
light goes on, this time next to a 8; and we note that when we add 7+ 2 and
3+ 5 in our head we also get 9 and 8, and being intelligent creatures we
recognize the connection between what going on in our head and what's going
on in the computer. And it works both ways, if the computer is smart enough
it will recognize that what's going on in it's microprocessor can be mapped
with  what's going on in your brain.   
 

> > 
> The implication of the terms you use IMO rather too loosely
> 
> above
>

I ask again, which word didn't you understand?



I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording conceals.
The problem is that this wording begs the very questions for which the
answer is sought. I'm afraid that's the principal reason your conclusions
strike you as so obvious.

David


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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-27 Thread John Clark

On Sat, May 27, 2017  David Nyman  wrote:

>
>> >
>> 
>> Data feels something?
>>
>
> 
> > 
> Yes.
>
>
>
>> 
>> >
>> >>
>> 
>> Data feels something in a way?
>>
>
> 
> > 
> Yes.
>
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive assertion.
>

I'm glad you see what I mean, but unfortunately I don't see what you mean.
You asked questions and I answered them without equivocation to the best
of my ability.


> >
>> >>
>> 
>> When 'it' is being processed?
>>
>
> >> 
> Yes, but I don't understand why that pronoun is hiding inside quotation
> marks, the referent is clear. 
>
>
> > 
> It can't be clear unless you can distinguish data from the particular
> physical relations
>

I point to a tree and then point to the word "tree" written in ink on
paper, and it you are watching this and you are a intelligent person or
computer you get the idea that one is a symbol for the other.



> > 
> there simply is no canonical way of achieving this without the implicit
> assumption of a privileged interpretation from outside the system in
> question.
>

Well yes, but we can go outside the system and so can a computer, we do
have access to information that is not innate to our brain, that's what our
senses are for. If you were as ignorant of the outside world as you were on
the day you were born you wouldn't know anything except pleasure and pain.


> >> 
> Processed by matter that obeys the laws of physics obviously.
>
>
> > 
> And how then is that supposed to produce a distinguishable outcome from
> the straightforward transition from one physical state to another?
>

That not hard to produce because not all physical transformations are
identical just as not all ideas are identical; so they can match up. When
the electrical contacts under the "7" and the "+" and the "2" key closes a
current forms that lights up a LED next to the "9" symbol, but when the 3,
+.and 5 key is depressed a different physical current forms and a different
light goes on, this time next to a 8; and we note that when we add 7+ 2 and
3+ 5 in our head we also get 9 and 8, and being intelligent creatures we
recognize the connection between what going on in our head and what's going
on in the computer. And it works both ways, if the computer is smart enough
it will recognize that what's going on in it's microprocessor can be mapped
with  what's going on in your brain.   
 

> > 
> The implication of the terms you use IMO rather too loosely
> 
> above
>

I ask again, which word didn't you understand?


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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-27 Thread David Nyman

On 28 May 2017 12:36 a.m., "John Clark"  wrote:

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Nyman  wrote:

> >
>> What is
>> actually 
>> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is
>> being processed
>> .
>>
>
> > 
> Data feels something?
>

Yes.

> 
> > 
> Data feels something in a way?
>

Yes.

Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive assertion.

> > 
> When 'it' is being processed?
>

Yes, but I don't understand why that pronoun is hiding inside quotation
marks, the referent is clear. 

It can't be clear unless you can distinguish data from the particular
physical relations that putatively instantiate it. And there simply is no
canonical way of achieving this without the implicit assumption of a
privileged interpretation from outside the system in question.

> > 
> By what?
>

Processed by matter that obeys the laws of physics obviously.

And how then is that supposed to produce a distinguishable outcome from the
straightforward transition from one physical state to another?

> >
> I could continue.
>

Please do.

The implication of the terms you use IMO rather too loosely above is a
frequent focus of discussion in this list, if you are so inclined.

David

> >> 
>> You can argue if that is true or not but I think the claim itself is
>> pretty clear, or at least as clear as things get when consciousness is
>> involved.
>>
>
> > 
> Frankly
>  
> i
> t's about as clear as mud.
> 
>

Which word didn't you understand?

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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-27 Thread John Clark

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Nyman  wrote:

> >
>> What is
>> actually 
>> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is
>> being processed
>> .
>>
>
> > 
> Data feels something?
>

Yes.



> 
> > 
> Data feels something in a way?
>

Yes.


> > 
> When 'it' is being processed?
>

Yes, but I don't understand why that pronoun is hiding inside quotation
marks, the referent is clear. 


> > 
> By what?
>

Processed by matter that obeys the laws of physics obviously.


> >
> I could continue.
>

Please do.


> >> 
>> You can argue if that is true or not but I think the claim itself is
>> pretty clear, or at least as clear as things get when consciousness is
>> involved.
>>
>
> > 
> Frankly
>  
> i
> t's about as clear as mud.
> 
>

Which word didn't you understand?

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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-27 Thread David Nyman

On 27 May 2017 at 21:20, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, May 27, 2017  David Nyman  wrote:
>
>
>> > 
>> it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when
>> progress seems to be blocked
>>
>
> Those 
> alternative modes of explanation
>  are not only 
> unscientific
>  there are a complete waste of time because there is no way, even with
> unlimited experimental capacity, such explanations can ever be proved or
> disproved. And as if that isn't bad enough the "explanations" can't even be
> stated without numerous personal pronouns with no unique referent due to
> the fact that personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.
>
>
>> > 
>> 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.
>>
>
> Einstein gave many very clear examples of his theory making different
> predictions than Newton did, the precession of Mercury's orbit is only one
> example.  If even one of Einstein's prediction had failed his entire theory
> would be forgotten today, but none of them failed. Where is the equivalent
> for Bruno's theory or any other consciousness theory? Show me the
> precession
> !
>
>
>> > 
>> A different mode of enquiry may well allow us to take a quite different
>> view of its 'brute facts'.
>>
>
> Maybe. Maybe
>
> the chain of "what caused that?" questions goes on forever in which case
> there will always be unanswered question. So either unanswered question or
> brute facts must exist, you can't get rid of both.
>
>
>>> >>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 
> What is
> actually 
> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being
> processed
> .
>

Data feels something?
 Data feels something in a way? When 'it' is being processed? By what? I
could continue.



> You can argue if that is true or not but I think the claim itself is
> pretty clear, or at least as clear as things get when consciousness is
> involved.
>

Frankly
 
i
t's about as clear as mud.
 I think we can be a little clearer.

David

>
> 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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-27 Thread John Clark

On Sat, May 27, 2017  David Nyman  wrote:

> > 
> it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when
> progress seems to be blocked
>

Those 
alternative modes of explanation
 are not only 
unscientific
 there are a complete waste of time because there is no way, even with
unlimited experimental capacity, such explanations can ever be proved or
disproved. And as if that isn't bad enough the "explanations" can't even be
stated without numerous personal pronouns with no unique referent due to
the fact that personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.

> > 
> 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.
>

Einstein gave many very clear examples of his theory making different
predictions than Newton did, the precession of Mercury's orbit is only one
example.  If even one of Einstein's prediction had failed his entire theory
would be forgotten today, but none of them failed. Where is the equivalent
for Bruno's theory or any other consciousness theory? Show me the
precession
!

> > 
> A different mode of enquiry may well allow us to take a quite different
> view of its 'brute facts'.
>

Maybe. Maybe

the chain of "what caused that?" questions goes on forever in which case
there will always be unanswered question. So either unanswered question or
brute facts must exist, you can't get rid of both.

>> >>
>> 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.
>

What is
actually 
being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being
processed
. You can argue if that is true or not but I think the claim itself is
pretty clear, or at least as clear as things get when consciousness is
involved.

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.

Re: Peepee

2017-05-27 Thread David Nyman

On 27 May 2017 at 16:02, John Clark  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.

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

Re: Peepee

12 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information