Please see after your remark/question at the end
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument

Le 28-juil.-06, à 02:52, John M a écrit :

> Then again is the 'as - if' really a computation as in our today's
> vocabulary? Or, if you insist (and Bruno as well, that it IS) is it
> conceivable as our digital process, that embryonic first approach, or
> we
> may hope to understand later on a higher level (I have no better word
> for
> it): the analog computation of qualia and meaning?  Certainly not the
> Turing
> or Church ways and not on Intel etc. processors.

What makes you so sure? Sometimes you talk like if you were sure we are
not digital machine.
Is that not a human prejudice?
At least I can explain why If we are machine, we cannot *know* it (just
bet on it). There is mathematical description of machine's prejudices.

"...We May Hope..." does not seem to me as beiing "so sure".

Look please at the "-IF-" in your offered explanation. How about "if not?" 
the mathematical description is part of the "human prejudice" you mention.
You are within a mindset and not responsive to outside ideas.
Which is natural. Once I allow to my (outside) ideas to be dragged INTO your 
circle of your mindset I am lost. Which may  not be so bad, but if I am 
mistaken, I want to get it verified from arguments applicable within  my 
Just as you cannot argue with a religious belief taken as very 'sufficient 
evidence' by the adherents. They KNOW and my agnostic doubt looks to 'them' 
as a typical
"Nescio" non est  Argumentum,". (Nor are "if"-s - I think).



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to