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 possibility.

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 "True Believer"!

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to