On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
?
Falsifiable means "can be falsified". here the gravity can be
falsfied: "you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up".
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough
definition of consciousness,
you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as
a subject:
Cs = subject + object
If you don't include the subject, then:
Cs = object
which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole.
I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there
are none.
But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on
some principles about it.
To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to
agree with this:
1) that you are conscious (or that the humans are conscious)
2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change
made at *some* description level of the brain or body or local
environment or even some physical universe.
All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on
1) and 2).
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot
work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on
propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because
too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and
military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are
build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But
it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are
hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars.
Hi Richard Ruquist
There is no god in comp.
Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp.
Of course if you define God by "white giant with a beard, and sitting
on a cloud", then you are very plausibly right.
A little more on this in my reply to Richard.
Bruno
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.
