On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of
oneself apparently.
In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very
serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and
make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother
you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of
effort debating with, would say things like "embody the Aquarian
tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-
Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their interesting
combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their
Sun" and "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter
stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and "There is nothing in
numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern
cosmology." and "Astrology is extremely rational" ? I've got to
tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that
massively bothers the hell out of me.
I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well
before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that
crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the
correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope,
basically because that's my job.
His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in
favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q-
>p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on
terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it
wherever it appears.
When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you
confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers?
When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug
prohibition?
I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained
the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all
papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.
Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be
the drugs ;)
You do a lot of mistake in logic.
Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant
distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound.
That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of
argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda.
You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once
again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of
anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument
against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience.
The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support
experience, is because experience is not based on something other
than itself.
This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by
justifiable reason.
I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an
argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us
that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits
then zygotes.
Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc.
I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never
have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the
territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is
100% aesthetic.
If you say so ...
Bruno
It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of nonsense
or a fixed uniformity of sense rather than the eternal fertility of
aesthetic sense. We do run on machines, and we run machines, but
machines run on sense.
That is not a valid argument.
I would agree, but that wasn't my argument.
Craig
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
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.
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.
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.
