On 02 Dec 2013, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/2/2013 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/12/2 LizR <lizj...@gmail.com>
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing "belief" to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist.

Call it "ultimate reality". It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty.

There is no problem to call it "ultimate reality", as long as you are open it might have "personal" aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that "ultimate reality" can be (with this or that hypothesis).

Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible "ultimate reality". It too might have personal aspect.

I believe Bruno's only "prejudice" about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction.

Assuming computationalism...

I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against that!

Of course his Universal Dovetailer is pretty super too. In my view, these are all just hypothetical models and whatever is in them is implicitly "natural" if the model is right. If Zeus existed, he'd be part of nature (just an extended notion of nature). Bruno's theory explains some aspects of consciousness, e.g. something are incommunicable, but it doesn't do so well at explaining matter or even other things about consciousness.

At least it explains the appearance of matter. With the Matter assumption, and comp, this is put under the rug. In fact I know only comp for explaining matter. It is not good (today) to do prediction, but that was not the goal, which is to get a coherent picture of reality which explains both mind and matter in the frame of computationalism.

I'm not even convinced by his movie graph argument (or Mauldin's Olympia) because they seem to require that all possible contingencies be anticipated. But maybe I just don't understand them.

We can come back on this someday.



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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to