On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
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
Lovely :)
Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and
music:
http://reglos.de/musinum/
Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate "rich" music,
if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :)
Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2.
http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid
I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers):
http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid
Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit
sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very
few bits.
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 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.
