terren wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I wondering about that too. I am just a persons that tends to be drawn
inside those kinds of discussions because I am too habitual with regards to
disussions to stop discussing even if I see there is nothing to gain.
I guess that's a symptom of our culture, after all politicians do nothing
else and in school irrelevant discussion were almost necessary for a good
grade (if you couldn't shine by giving appropiate answers to concrete
questions). I am also corrupted by that, sadly.

terren wrote:
>  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.
I think I have an OK understanding of the argument. Basically my criticism
isn't even rational criticism, since the argument (seems to) makes sense if
you just use your ratio, so it doesn't matter either way.

terren wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, he isn't directly selling that COMP is true (though I find subliminally
it feels as if he is doing that). I am more concerned with his claim that
his theory is actually a refutable scientific theory.
But basically he can do however he wishes, I am just drawn into this
argument due to my own ignorance (subconciously I still want to
fundamentally figure things out, and Bruno is a nice person to discuss with
in this regard :D).

terren wrote:
>  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
> stance.
You are right, this is just my intellect being afraid of losing it solid
foundation and thus feeling that it is necessary to discuss that.
Essentially I am just wanting to convince myself that what I say is true and
this is easier to do in a discussion than by myself. But really it is
stupid, since I am precisely defending the position that one should rely on
experience, not some belief.
I fully admit that my discussion reveals that I have some psychological
dissonance. ;)

Many thanks for reminding me, I really need those reminders. Your comment is
probably of much more worth than all other posts I have read yet. :)

terren wrote:
>> 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.
I've thought about these ideas for years, quite a lot actually. I
appreciated Brunos ideas a long time, even defended it myself. I just found
that it makes no sense (not from a rational standpoint, though!), yet I
still feel I have to defend myself in the same way I would have defended a
rational belief that I am attached to.

I guess it is better to just stop posting here... ;)

View this message in context: 
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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