kind reply, I was not ironical. You did not deny my position that ALL you do is coming from YOUR mind. However your justification ends with a 'funny' word: FACTS. What would YOU accept as facts and what would I? (Mind-body? our conscious feelings of a 'body(?) and all its accessory jazz is how WE (1st pers?) interpret our response to impacts we realize(d). Pain? Idea? Sport achievement? all from our solipsistic self considered as 'facts' (I start to be impressed by Colin's solipsism).
So I am not impressed by (your) science based on (your) facts. I listen to them an - maybe - accept (in toto or in part).
The Goedel-infection of complex machines (ourselves) was much simpler expressed by George (cannot prove that I am not crazy).
>"So, machine which introspect themselves sufficiently closely can not only guess the existence of something "bigger", but the machine can study the mathematical structure of its ignorance border."<
still does not show that 'it' comprehends the 'items' of such "BIGGER", only that 'it' accepts the existence of (something) such. Even more: it can study its (incomprehending) ignorance.
UDA step 1:
do you really 'believe'(?!) that we, identified as (complex) machines are really ONLY the PARTS of the BODY? you seem to be in favor of the 'mind-body' idea (<G>) - where is the mind IN US? you replace (yes doctor) the body-parts and the mind just goes with it? I use YOUR words here, I would say 'mentality' or 'ideation' the part neurologists cannot give account for. Or would you 'make' mentality a bodily organ, not flesh and blood, but of ideational stuff? then 'mind' would merge into body and you are not in favor of that. Anyway such an extended body-concept in my appreciation for Gestalt would please me. Just like "brainS" is not the plural of "brain", the goo. Facilitation of the hard problem.
Materialists cannot come up to such solutions. They measure
mVs - mAmps. So what does (your) body consist of? Or: what do you let go into the 'mind', what the YD does not exchange?
Your 2nd par "*far* from being solved" is not explained by a cloudy allowance that it surely can be mathematically solved. I say similarly cloudily: no, it cannot. My fact.
And I am not impressed by a reference to 'quantum-like rules', to refer to a simplified linear 1-track methodology in understanding something that is complex.
Your 'results' (no matter how much I appreciate them) are still within the comprehension of your thinking, not of a mathematical structuring (Godel) that there is some 'BIG' which is above your comprehension. (QED).
I find your reference to atheists irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I simply do not find 'room' for 'supernatural' or any extraneous intelligence that would 'create', 'rule', 'organize' or do any other 'godly' activity over our (not understood) existence.
So: no 'theo' for me. (a- or not). People with similar ideas in earlier times coined the 'pantheist' _expression_, but that. too, was a variant of the religious formula.
I still stay with my 'scientific agnosticism': I dunno.
But I can criticize.
----- Original Message -----
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
- Re: Barbour- Platonia in private! jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a t... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternati... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alter... Bruno Marchal
- SV: Barbour's mistake: An alter... Lennart Nilsson
- Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... Bruno Marchal
- SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... Lennart Nilsson
- Re: SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: ..to Bru... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platon... David Nyman
- Maudlin's argument George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's argument Bruno Marchal
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy