On 17 Oct 2012, at 20:16, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/17/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Oct 2012, at 20:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinberg<whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you could >> >have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness.
>> >Craig
>> >
> Could you provide a link where you more fully explain what sense is
> and how it relates to comp and consciousness? You probably already
> have. But I missed it.
> Richard
Hi Richard,

     Unless you are a zombie, you are experiencing right now exactly
what Sense is. Only you can know exactly what the Sense of Richard
Ruquist and Craig can only experience (and thus know) what his Sense
is. What you need to understand is that Sense is strictly 1p, it has no 3p aspect. You either experience your own version of it or, like Dennett
and the materialist, try to deny its existence.

Right! At the same time, I would say that there is no truly 3p aspect of anything.

This is equivalent with saying "I will not do science", and coherent with your idea that 2+2=5.

How so? You are requiring that *any* intersection of 1p truths to = a truthful 3p. This is wrong!

I was not saying that.

You might be doing poetry, or continental philosophy, but we can hardly appreciate it as such, as you present it as telling a truth, and worst, a truth possibly insulting or degrading for an infinity of possible creatures.

Come on, Bruno, I am trying to "met you halfway" in your comp result!

I was talking to Craig.

Even a philosopher can only defend the *possibility* of a truth.

I am defending truth but must be consistent with the fact that we can only *know* finite approximations of truth.

In science we don't defend truth. We develop belief from observation and dialog, deduce new belief and test them until we change them. We don't defend truth but try to agree on some and to derive from there.

I am not saying that defending truth can't be interesting, but it is another activity.

Some scientist and some philosophers can ignore the difference, and that can be confusing, especially when we tackle on some hot point where many acts as if they knew the truth.

The 3p arises as an internalization of many 1p (private qualitative) experiences within another 1p experience (as quantitative public token views).

This might be true, but does not makes invalid the existence of theories, and objective 3p hypotheses, (like Arithmetic or String theory, or comp in cognitive sciences, etc.).

Sure, I agree but notice that your statement is of "theories". We have to be able to falsify them with reference to multiple 1p content for them to be possible 3p.


Comp makes arithmetic, as a TOE, falsifiable.


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