Bruno, I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that 'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so.
One remark - and I am not so sure about being right: "DASEIN" in my (almost mothertongue German) may not reflect the "DA" = *there* plus "SEIN" *to be*, rather (- and again I hide behind my second 'almost' of half century in the US:) - - *"THE EXISTENCE"*. I feel Heidegger (whom I did not study) does not imply a spacial, or locational momentum by using 'Dasein' for a simple 'Sein'. He might have in mind the difference between the existing vs. the not existing. It also has a rythmical ease vs. a short 'sein' what the English put by the 'to' and the French in a longer 1.5-syllable(?) <e">tre. JohnM On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote: > > > Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below > by using the word "dasein". "Being there ". > Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the > world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. > > > > I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you > read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion. > Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a > machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of > machine, or in any third person objective term. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you > seem to speak of the world and mind > as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world > and mind as we live them, > not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. > > > The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with > objective and subjective property. > > > > > It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving > in. > > Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating > it. > > > But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to their > appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more importantly to > what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please read the papers > as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more than 1500 > years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality is a non > computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can test. So my > main point is that comp is a testable theory. > > Bruno > > > > > > > Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/15/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > > > > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.