On 08 Aug 2012, at 19:38, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> With this thing you call "comp" if matter is organized in certain ways then the adjective "conscious" can be used to describe it and that's all that can be said about consciousness;

> ?

I have no answer because I don't understand the question.

The mind-body comes from the fact that we don't grasp the relation between organized matter and the qualia-consciousness lived by the person experiencing it. Then, assuming comp, any explanation of consciousness is forced to justify the appearance of matter without postulating it. Consciousness is the grain of sand capable of forcing an important paradigm shift in the plausibly the near future.

 >> however that's not all that can be said about matter;

> Apparent matter, or primitive matter. In our context everything is in that difference.

The sort of matter the Large Hadron Collider investigates. I don't know if you call that apparent matter or primitive matter, I just call it matter.

It is (obviously) apparent matter. Primitive matter is a theological concept used by physicalist. It is not (yet) a physical notion. The question is not addressed today in physics, only in the foundation of cognitive science. But QM kicked on that issue as the notion, by Einstein, of "element of reality" illustrated well.

>> I see on this very list endless debates about if people have free will or not or if God exists or not and there is not the slightest agreement about what "free will" or "God" means.

> I gave the definitions.

Here we go again!
Yet again we have tales of the mythical era of Middle Earth where you gave all these wonderful definitions of free will and God and apparently also made a vow never ever to repeat them again for mortal man to hear.

I provided definition, very close to yours, but *you* stick on the popular definition, which is no more studied by scientist. It is a bit like criticizing astronomy for lack in rigor in astrology.

> But you reject them!

As I said before I will agree on any meaning of any word provided it is self consistent and non-circular and provided you don't complain when I use nothing but that definition and pure logic to take you to places you may not want to go, like endowing Roulette Wheels with free will or turning a bulldozer into God. If you don't like the consequences of your definition don't blame me, it's your definition not mine.

You don't listen, even to your own definition, or mine if there is a nuance. The roulette Wheels has no free will, as it is not a computer representing itself and its ignorance, as forced by my definition (yours + the important nuance that the system has to be partially aware of its ignorance). Nor is the bulldozer a God, as it has a priori nothing to do with our existence.

> Atheism needs a precise notion of God

That is very true it does, and it's the exact same notion that 99.9% of the people on this planet who call themselves a "theist" have,

That is false, and even if true, that is not an argument.

a omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. It follows logically, and using a convention of the English language that putting a "a" before a word can negate it, a "atheist" is someone who does not believe in that notion.

It means not-god, and that is ambiguous. It can mean either I believe in Not-God, or I don't believe in God. I follow the standard definition atheism = "I believe in the non existence of God". It is a hell of a difference with the agnostic who does not believe in God, but might also not believe in not-god.

Then, by sticking furthermore on the christian God, you confirm quite nicely my statement that atheists are christians in disguise.

You disbelieve in the same thing I do


but you seem ashamed of that fact and try to weasel out of it, but I'm proud to call myself a atheist.

If it means agnostic, we are the same, except on the vocabulary issue.
I could be more atheist in the sense that I have lost my faith in a primitive physical universe. And with comp we know that such a thing makes no sense. Like life has a physical origin, the physical has an arithmetical/psychological origin. To say that God made the universe, or that the universe simply exists are equivalent in their lack of explanation power.

> I don't believe in any literal definition, of God [...] I am not an atheist.

You don't believe in God but you are not a atheist. That does not compute.

No. I am an agnostic.

> I am a Pythagorean. I believe in 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

Are you as uncomfortable as Pythagoras was about the square root of 2?

A computable function.

He didn't know about -1 but if he did I'll bet he wouldn't have liked it much, and I'll bet he would have really hated the square root of -1.

With comp, a precise frontier between ontology and epistemology is conventional. But I have fixed the TOE as elementary arithmetic, so negative numbers are better seen as useful epistemological fiction. But that is really not important. Z, N, Q, and C_Q are equivalent ontological base for comp (C_Q = the rational complex numbers). Indeed I could even use instead combinators, game of life pattern, lambda terms, etc. To progress, we must make a conventional choice for the Turing universal ontology and stick to it.



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