On 01 Dec 2011, at 13:22, benjayk wrote:

John Mikes wrote:

Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree,
please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit).

I agree wholheartedly!
That's why I don't like the reasoning. It is very narrow, and pretends to be
a proof (or at least a valid reasoning) for something that can't be
concluded through reason.

But it can still be concluded through reason starting from an hypothesis.

It is very immodest to just disregard all
criticism of the argument (and to defend that with "you don't know what you're talking about"), and then claim to be modest by virtue of not taken
the assumption for granted.
Taken the validity of reasoning for granted is not much more modest than
taking assumptions for granted,

Absolutely not. The validity of a reasoning can be peer reviewed. The truth of an assumption cannot.

since really the reasoning itself depends on
many unstated assumption.

Which one?

In this case, for example, only materialism or computational immaterialism
can be true,

This statement if false, and has never been made in any of my post. All what is *concluded* is that (weak) materialism is incompatible with computationalism. That's quite different. In one case you say that there is only two options, and in the second case you say that two options (among perhaps an infinity of others) cannot be taken together. It is a bit like a confusion between ((not A) OR (not B)) and (A OR B). This is non valid, even with the excluded third principle.

it is meaningful to say YES to something that is subjectively
not happening, etc...

If someone asks me "do you want to be NOT tortured", I will say "yes", and I hope nothing will happen.

I don't *know* the reasoning is false, but I can see plainly that is not
quite as objectively valid as Bruno wants to present it as.

It is up to you to tell us what is the step you consider non valid, and why. Up to now, I might have missed your point, but it seems to me that it concerns only the possibility of comp, which is not a relevant point concerning the reasoning.

Being able to say "I DUNNO!" is, in my opinion, one of the most important
steps in really being able to experience reality and ourselves in an
unbiased and clear manner.

It helps to approach that, probably. And certainly for machine. I agree.

As long as we cling to knowledge, we are looking at our ideas of reality and
ourselves, not at reality as it actually is.

That's indeed the key to understand the difference between belief and knowledge, dream and reality, Bp and Bp & p, etc. But nobody can talk in any third person way of what reality "actually is", because the only reality we can undoubtably know *as such* is our private and non rationally-communicable consciousness.



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