On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Feb 2013, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 2/7/2013 8:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Beyond our view of matter, I would guess that both of them would > >>> agree that matter is a function of quantum functions, which to me > >>> is the same thing as an image of the mind made impersonal. > >> > >> But that is not what people means by quantum, which need to refer > >> to the *assumed* (not derived like in comp) physics. > > > > Comp is derived from an assumption. Physics is derived from > > observation. > > Comp is the assumption. > Physics is partially derived from observation, but makes many > assumptions, inclduing comp most of the time, and it becomes pseudo- > science when it hides the assumption (like when forgetting to relate > the assumption about the existence of a (primary) physical universe. > > Then both comp laws and physical laws rely on observation to be refuted. >
Observing, assuming, refuting are all aspects of sense. Sense cannot be refuted or assumed or observed without using sense. Sense cannot be understood as a logical expectation from comp or an observable mechanism in physics, and in fact both physics and comp owe their epistemology to sense. Craig > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dennett made clear that he is physicalist, naturalist, and weak > >>> materialist. > >>> > >>> I don't know any scientist being idealist, and even in philosophy > >>> of mind, most dictionaries describe it as being abandoned. > >>> > >>> I agree in the sense that you intend, but I think that > >>> functionalism is the same thing as impersonal idealism. > >> > >> You can't provide new meaning to terms having standard definition. > > > > That's pretty funny from a guy who redefines "God", "theology", and > > "mechanism". :-) > > I use the original and general definition of God by those who created > the subject, as I use "theology" in the general sense used by even > contemporaries philosophers. And the use of mechanism for digital > mechanism is the standard term, for example used by Judson Webb, > Dennett & Hofstadter, etc. Then what I derived might astonished those > who have prejudices in the field, but we hardly change a definition > due to logical consequences of them. > > Why does atheists defends so much the over-precision brought by the > Romans in the subject can only confirm my (perhaps shocking for some) > statement that atheism is but a variant of christianism, except that > atheists are far more dogmatic on the definitions. > > I recommend you stringly the reading of Brian Hines: "Return to the > One: Plotinus' guide to God-realization", which illustrates well the > big similarities between Christian metaphysics and the great > differences too. It illustrates well the complete similarities on the > question and the notions, and the complete difference in the answers. > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
