On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux
2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
> > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect
> > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there
> > information to report.
> WTF ?
Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?
Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more
stupid though to discuss in your pocket ?
I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a
He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic
ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate
important results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of
times but he refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real
meaning of rigorous terms like computation. He has surely spent
enough time on this list to have at least some grasp of, say, what
COMP actually says, but he shows no evidence of it. I can only
chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads like
one of these generative postmodernist essays. I am tempted to give
him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the flames.
In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard
to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the
ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless people are
willing to contemplate alternative ideas?
I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that qualia
explains the universe, that fits with the proven consequences of comp,
where quanta are case of qualia. He is not bad at introspection, he
might grasp comp a little bit, but he does not try to submit a theory
in the usual meaning of the terms. So we can't help.
Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a "pretext for not addressing
the mind-body problem by materialist", and what we can already see
from a formulation of the mind body problem when computationalism is
taken seriously into account. This already leads to a rational
alternative, if not reversal.
To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of
"Existence" illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.
It is not because we have put the qualia and consciousness under the
rug for a long time, that we can reify our own experiences in the
theories. That remains unscientific. What we can do consists in making
clear our assumptions, reason, compare with observation, etc.
Craig's theory is ethically problematical, like sects or government
which forbids the practice of some medicine.
And this lack of ethicalness is directly a consequence of its 1p
personal reification, in the sense that he talks like if he knew a
truth. This is a symptom of pseudo-religion, pseudo-philosophy, which
might perhaps not been tolerated (as we know where that kind of
thinking can lead).
Craig pretended it would be OK for his daughter to marry a man with a
digital brain, but that he would still consider his daughter marrying
a zombie, or something else non human. That's looks like an open mind,
but he does not seems to realize that his possible disciples might
differ on that. It is like Obama signing statement (after signing the
bill NDAA), where he says that he will personally not use the notes,
without realizing apparently that the next president might.
Craig seems to lack the amount of doubt which makes the scientist
aware that he can only modestly suggesting theories, and try them.
It is annoying when the consequences are segregationist. Craig should
be more neutral, avoid reference to word like "ream" and "true", and
work out a more intelligible theory, if he want to progress.
Not sure Craig is a troll, but he might become one, if he does not try
to grasp the notion of "scientific theories".
At some point it looks like Craig want science to commit the error
which has been done in religion/theology.
My point is that with comp there is a clear way to undo that error in
the field of (number's) theology.
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
For more options, visit this group at