On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
>> where do you think the flaw is.
Step 8. In the idea that one can simply not postulate a physical
universe and thus make it vanish.
I ask you to provide what is invalid in a proof that P -> Q, and you
give me a philosophical opinion why you estimate that Q is non sense.
That is not a refutation of P -> Q.
You are missing the tiny bit of reference to the physical world
in each and every number.
There is no such references. Logicians are literalist.
If you prove this, then you can add a 9th step and conclude that
comp is wrong. But you keep saying this without proof or argument.
I cannot help if you cannot see it.
I cannot see it if you don't show it. In science all assertion can be
justified. Either they are hypothesis, or they follow from the
hypotheses by the inference rules. This has nothing to do with true
and false, note.
It is the stability of consciousness itself, but this does not
make consciousness primitive. I truly need to present a more
carefully reasoned argument for the neutrality of consciousness. You
refuse to read B. Russell's stuff. OK... You will have to deal with
my terrible writings...
I did read it, but you keep repeating the contrary. So we are in a loop.
If you could just consider building a toy model of how to 1)
represent a pair of amoeba with your construction and 2) model the
conversation between them that is possible.
This is an exercise for undergraduate. See my paper "amoeba, planaria
and dreaming machine". The planaria program does this effectively for
any number, or eeven constructive ordinal number of interacting cells.
No, I am not. Primitive reality has no properties associated with
it. It cannot be assumed or one gets contradictions in one's theory.
It is not numebrs or matter or pink unicorns it is only necessary
Sorry but this does not make sense.
No, sigma_1 representations are only what can be non-
contradictorily communicated, it is not the whole of reality.
Of course reality is sigma_2, sigma_3, etc. But sigma_1 can be
contradictory. Indeed it can be false also.
You are not behaving like an agnostic. You are behaving like a
You should not let your cat walking on your keyboard.
You can't use philosophy to refute a technical point, Stephen. Unfair
incongruities will not help. You are the one who keep pretending
having seen a flaw; you are the one obliged to show it, or to retract
and be more cautious.
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
For more options, visit this group at