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
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.
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
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
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.