Hi Roger,

You might think that you are being consistent with an anti-materialist stance, but consider how your wordings appear to use the exact mereological relations that are required for a materialist ontology. A mereology is a scheme of relations between "wholes" and "parts", it is what defines the primitives that we build our set theories from. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

I don't have time to show my claim at this time, I apologize. But if you have a moment, please take a look at the article and ponder the implications of it.

On 9/15/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
My stance there is absolutely anti-materialist.
Where do you see a materialistic statement ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-09-14, 12:40:45
    *Subject:* Re: science only works with half a brain

    On 9/14/2012 8:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
    > Hi Bruno Marchal
    > Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended)
    and so are quantitative.
    > Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them.
    > Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured
    directly, at least,
    > nor dealt with by computers at least directly.
    > I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split.
    > Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it.
    Dear Roger,

         You are assuming an exclusively "materialist" stance or
    paradigm in
    your comment. Bruno's ideas are against the very idea.

    > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net>
    > 9/14/2012
    > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
    > so that everything could function."
    > ----- Receiving the following content -----
    > From: Bruno Marchal
    > Receiver: everything-list
    > Time: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27
    > Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain
    > On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote:
    >> Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb,
    >> ROGER: Hi meekerdb
    >> First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so
    >> it only works with half a brain.
    >> MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one
    >> cutting the "corpus callosum" here.
    >> ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a
    >> subjective measure.
    >> Apples and oranges.
    > You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features
    > too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that
    > purposes.
    > Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also.
    >> Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category.
    > Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something
    > is not scientific, you make it non scientific.
    >> So science
    >> can neither make nor understand meaningful statements.
    >> Logic has the same fatal problem.
    > Only if you decide so.
    >> BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital
    >> transformations, and its
    >> "dual" the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation.
    There is
    >> proof theory and model theory.
    >> Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There
    >> are many branches in
    >> logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them.
    >> ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as
    >> numbers or written words.
    > Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no
    > syntactical or finite counterparts.
    >> Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw
    >> it out.
    > On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic
    > notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course
    > those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit
    > or ignorant of the UDA.
    > Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p
    > are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical
    > 3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to
    > computations.
    >> BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists
    >> in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually.
    >> ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values.
    >> morality, salvation, forgiveness.
    >> These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues.
    > Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the
    > method. If not you would not even been arguing.
    >> The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual
    >> oof faith and moral practice.
    > OK.
    >> Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts,
    >> quantity, numbers, physical data.
    > If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing
    > claims, and stop proposing normatible behavior.
    > Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond
    > itself. Like in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology,
    > protecting faith from blind faith, actually.
    >> BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the
    >> human question,
    >> nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense.
    >> Bruno
    >> ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do.
    > No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are
    > religious, despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the
    > body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for
    > information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates
    so well.
    >> As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible.
    > Yes, like PI = 3.
    >> But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with
    >> meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc.
    > OK. Like electronics cannot explain the Deep Blue chess
    strategy. But
    > computer science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains
    > why there is something like meaning, value, morality, salvation.
    > Computer science deals with immaterial entity, developing
    discourse on
    > many non material things, including knowledge, meaning, etc.
    > As I said, you are the one defending a reductionist conception of
    > machine, confusing them with "nothing but" their appearances.
    > Bruno




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