On 2/8/2012 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
I think Quentin has a theory here, that you might be stupid.
Joseph Knight has another theory, which is that you are a troll.
Umm, could one's theory of another be such that it is a faithful
subimage of the theory maker?
Maybe I have a theory that Bruno is a Tyrant and Craig is a Jester. ;-)
You do seem avoiding reasoning, to reassert in many ways a conviction
that you have.
You want to seem to change the rule of the game, where, personally, I
want them to be applied in any field, notably in theology, defined as
the notion of truth about entities. Basically Plato's definition of
Theology. Truth. The truth we search, not the one we might find.
Could you imagine that your representation is not singular? There is
more than one way of thinking of the idea that you are considering.
but the trick is that
I emulate Einstein himself, and I provide the answer that Einstein
answers me (and I guess I will have to make some work to understand
them, or not).
It still doesn't make you Einstein, which is Searle's point.
And of course I am not Einstein, in that display, but Searle is the
one who makes the confusion. Einstein is the relatively concrete
immaterial person which has been temporary able to manifest itself
through the easy but tedious task to emulate its brain.
Searle confused an "easy" low level of simulation (neurons, say) with
the emulated person, which, if you deny the consciousness, is an
actual zombie (corroborating Stathis' early debunking of your argument).
There is no problem with having conviction, Craig, but you have to
keep them personal, and this for reasoning for comp or for non-comp,
or on whatever. It is the very idea of *reasoning* (always from public
If not I am afraid you are just not playing the game most participant
want to play in the list.
Both in "science" and in "philosophy" there are scientists and
philosophers. Scientists are those who can recognize they might be
wrong, or that they are wrong. You seem to be unable to conceive that
comp *might* be true, (in the weak sense of the existence of *some*
level of substitution), and you seem be unable to put down your
assumption and a reasoning which leads to your conviction.
Worst, you seem gifted in rhetorical tricks to avoid error recognition
(abunding in Knight's idea that you might be a troll, which I am not
But you cannot be wrong, Bruno, right? LOL
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