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.



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