On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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.
>>
>
>  Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. If
> logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is,
> but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which
> logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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 am saying that it is ontologically true. Not talking about our own
> experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense
> as a function of any other phenomenon.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning
> building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 ...
>>
>
> I do.
>

Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old
Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( => computing
results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms
of harmony we are familiar with today.

You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic
experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM

Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than "I do",
in any case.

:) PGC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to