On 27 Aug 2012, at 06:34, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 06:00:26PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. That was what I told him. But he left the place, simply, without
further comment, and quite disrespectfully. Many people were shocked
by this behavior, but said nothing. I think Chalmers is in part
responsible for the spreading of defamation I am living across the
ocean, and why nobody dares to mention the first person
indeterminacy, or my name.

I am afraid he has just been brainwashed by the main victims of a
manipulative form of moral harrasment., as I described in the book
ordered by Grasset in 1998 (but never published).

Well hopefully, we will remedy that soon, in English at least
:). There's half a chapter left to translate, and once Kim has a
chance at proof reading it, we should be able to get you a draft.


Good news. Nice. Thanks for telling me.



He is quite
plausibly a member of the same sect which put fraternity above
facts. It is a form of hidden corporatism.

I'm afraid Chalmers might be just an opportunist.

Who isn't! This is not a serious charge.

He is clearly not
a serious scientist, but seems to be an expert in self-marketing.

Sadly, one has to be, to be noticed.

His fading qualia paper is not so bad, but is hardly original, and
lacks many references. The hard problem of consciousness is know by
all philosophers of mind since a long time as the mind-body problem,
and his formulation is physicalist and not general, also.


I had lunch with him in early 2006 in Canberra, and this was after I
had sent him a draft of my ToN book, so he is well acquainted with the
ideas of this list. My impression was that he has a fairly fixed world
view, a steely mind capable of finding flaws in presentations of your
argument, and a general intolerance for woolly arguments. This is not
a bad thing, but I wasn't quite prepared for it at the time. The
subject material in ToN is quite convoluted, and to run through one
strand of it with someone like him is likely to run against the ground
of some differing conception of other. Marcus Hutter seems to think he
might be more predisposed to these ideas though.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that he might be spreading
malicious gossip about you.

?
I have never said that. I said that he has been perhaps *victim* of gossip, about my work or me.

All what I say is that he pretended that there is no first person indeterminacy. Like John Clark he confused probably 1-views and 3- views, but unlike John Clark he has some notoriety in philosophy of mind, and is supposed to get that fundamental difference.

Unlike John Clark, but like Bill Taylor, (as anyone can verify) he did not answer the question I asked to him, so there is just no hope. It is impossible to communicate with people willingly deaf.

Chalmers is just not a scientist, period.
And *my* most charitable explanation of his behavior, is that he has been probably brainwashed by my usual opponents (which have dismissed UDA as being too much simple to be accepted as a subject of a thesis, but did not read it). Actually some people confided me that this has been the case, in more than once circle. And my opponents in Brussels are not opponents to my work, as they did not read it (a fact that I can prove, actually), but they oppose me because I am witness of something. I don't want to talk about that now, and its is quite out of the topic of this list.

I have only pseudo-problem with those who does not take time to study the work, not with those reading it. With those who read it, I have the typical usual problem on technical points, and most of the time, it is because they are not familiar with elementary logic or with QM or with cognitive science, and they help me to improve the pedagogy.

I think the seven first steps are OK now, and that the step 8 can still be improved, so, as you know, I am interested in continuing to discuss it. But there is no need to understand step 8, to understand that the first person indeterminacy already change the common aristotelian picture about the mind-body, or the first-third person relationship, I think. Indeterminacy, non-cloning, and non-locality already follow from uda1-7.

It seems crazy for me how many computationalist philosophers neglect computer sciences, but this is due to the arbitrary cut between science and philosophy. My luck was to decide at the start to become a mathematical logician to be sure to be mathematically correct, and have the genuine form of language to handle comp, but then philosophers roar like if science was preparing to invade their territory, like in stone age, apparently.


Bruno


For one thing, I've never heard him, or
anyone else for that matter, even talk about your ideas, aside from
participants these mailing lists. More than likely, he dismisses you
as a harmless crank, and doesn't think about you at all. For all I
know, he may have a similar impression of me :).





Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
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 .


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.

Reply via email to