On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>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 <[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. >> > > 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 [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.
