On 2/1/2012 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 31 Jan 2012, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
Hi,
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.
Hi Bruno,
My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic axiom:
Existence exists. If this is difficult for you to grasp, please watch
this lecture on Epistemology:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222
This did not help. Sorry. I am used to appreciate Ayn Rand, but
progress have been made. Pointing on a playlist with 30 videos is
unecessary distraction. If you have a point, you should try to make it.
As I am not as skilled in composing words as many others I was
allowing the argument of some other people, that I agree with, to stand
in the place of my own. You might take this as a sign that I lack
understanding of the concepts but you would be mistaken. A person that
is mute and armless can nevertheless have consistent thoughts. BTW, I
should not have to point out that we have gone through this before, but
since I value your ideas I guess that I need to do it again, but
unhappily so.
When you say "Existence exist", either I interpret it intuitively by
"something exists" --- the non-nothing theory---and I hardly doubt it,
or I interpret it as a reification of existence, like if it was a
property or an object, and that would deserve a precise (and non
standard) theoretical frame to be made precise. Without precision, an
expression like "Existence exists" does not convey information, and
seems like a category error.
It is a tautology, similar to A is A, but maximal is that is is not
limited to specific instances such as what "something exists" conveys.
What one states "something exists" that necessitates the possibility
that "something else may not exist". I take Existence as primary and
primitive and neutral.
What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems
justifying the other form that "existence" can take.
All that does not contradict itself and is thus necessarily
possible exists, thus I claim that existence is necessary possibility.
Some times you might wish to stop thinking like an automaton and
enjoy how other people think. :-)
When I do not understand a joke/theory, I do not laugh/enjoy.
Then I apologize.
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
