On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
run
the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do
that.
It's not because you can program's them to being slavingly dumb to
do a
thing *that's the only thing they can do*, that's a "program" mean.
That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
anything else than what you already do.
But is that not what you do, and vindicate, by telling us that you
don't want to study the work of other people, or that you cannot
assume comp if only just for the sake of reasoning?
My goal is not to be intelligent or to be interested in every idea, it
is to explore the implications of this particular set of ideas.
You write well, but I'm afraid that you have to develop your learning
ability, and it is only by exploring the implications of different set
of ideas that you will learn the difference between arguing and
advertizing an opinion.
A lot of your comment are preventing the meaning of trying to discuss
further because you beg the question systematically. In a sense you
are saying that comp cannot be true, because your know that your
opinion is the correct one. We can't argue then.
I'm saying that comp does the same thing, as does every religion and
philosophy. They are all different ways of making sense of the
universe and the self. All I'm doing is looking at what they all have
in common - sense.
That is not what I am doing. On the contrary I wish the philosophy and
religion adopt the standard of science, which is modest hypothetical
communication, without *ever* claiming the truth, but trying valid
reasoning in hypothetical frames. It is the only way to progress.
Intelligence is the ability to
make sense of any given context and to potentially transcend it,
I can agree, although then even human might have a limited
intelligence, as humans cannot a priori transcend all context, or you
are making a gros assumption on humans. Again a new assumption in an
already very long and fuzzy list.
I'm not assuming humans have unlimited intelligence. We are smart
monkeys in some ways and really dumb in others.
which
is why it can't be programmed or simulated (but it can be imitated
trivially for specific functions).
And now a big assumption on machine, which is already refuted by the
diagonalization routine.
Comp automatically refutes challenges to comp. It does so in the only
way that makes sense in comp terms - by showing that logic compels us
to accept it's evidence.
On the contrary. Comp leads to a counter-intuitive view of reality,
doubly so for Aristotelians, and it does not ask to accept its
evidence, but only for its refutation. You get it all wrong, Craig.
Faith does the same thing in reverse. It says
you have to see through logic and embrace a deeper truth.
It suggests a theory, and derive propositions, accepted in the frame
of that theory.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
