Hey Benjay,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, benjayk
<benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, I won't bother to study a theory in much depth that I hold to be
> utterly implausible at the start.

I have to wonder why you're putting so much energy into refuting an
idea you feel to be utterly implausible. Anyway, if you put all the
energy you've invested into attacking the idea into really
understanding the consequences of the UDA you'd be in a much better
position to actually criticize it.

> You really show a bad sort of professor mentality here. You give me a bunch
> of complicated semi-nonsense, which is really impossible to understand (one
> may understand technicalities, but these really solve no question at all)
> and as long as I don't understand it (forever), you will say I must study
> more until I am really able to critisize what you say. But you are unwilling
> to discuss the very fundament of your theory (then you claim I don't even
> understand stuff from high school or primary school, or maybe at some point,
> kindergarten).
> That's a nice strategy to be "right", that's for sure. "You just don't
> understand it, study more".

The ideas are understandable if you're willing to depart from your
preferred way of viewing the world. Bruno has been adamant about not
committing to whether comp is true - he is not trying to sell you
anything. The only thing is he is saying is *if* comp is true, then
*these* are the consequences (materialism is false). That is only
threatening if you believe comp is true *and* you believe the
materialist worldview.  It doesn't sound like you're committed to
either, so really I don't understand why you take such a defensive

In fact, you can use Bruno's arguments to support the idea that comp
is false by invoking the absurdity of his conclusions (I once read
Bruno say this).  But you are in a poor position to criticize his
argumentation if you don't think comp is true, or are unwilling to
assume it for the sake of argument, because that's really the starting
point for the argument. That's step 1 of UDA.  Fine, you disagree with
step 1. You're done, have a sandwich.

> A good theory, in my opinion, is open to criticism if you just know the
> basics.

I appreciate the sentiment expressed here. Einstein's deep belief in
the power of a beautifully simple idea is an example of that. But just
to add my own 2 cents, Bruno's ideas are good (brilliant, actually)
*and* unfortunately, you need to be able to understand the technical
aspects of the UDA to see why. It is unfortunate that one must have
some minimum competence in philosphy of mind and computer science to
do that (which you would seem to have)... although it's possible
someone more gifted than Bruno at teaching could explain the ideas in
a simple enough way that you don't even need to know that much. With
your defensive posture however it seems as though you won't give
yourself a chance to appreciate the ideas, even if you ultimately
disagree with them.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to