On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/3/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:52, 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!

If you don't assume computationalism you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards "Matter". (That's the point), and on consciousness.

I don't understand what definition of 'supernatural' you're using? Are you simply saying that if X is taken as fundamental, and therefore unexplained, then X is supernatural? So long as matter is something we can manipulate I don't see how it can be considered supernatural (c.f. Dr. Johnson).

I mean that "supernatural" use some magic, or some actual non Turing emulability, not being recoverable by the FPI.

Supernatural = 1) non Turing emulable, 2) non FPI recoverable.

You need to work again the UDA step 8 to understand that any notion of primitive matter need a supernatural power, in that sense, if that matter can be related to any conscious experience.

Machines cannot distinguish an arithmetical reality from anything reified as "more real" than numbers.

Generally I see the natural/supernatural distinction as admitting a large grey area between black and white. Planets were once supposed to be "supernatural" beings, i.e. they were immortal and lived above the sphere of corruption in heaven. When they were found to obey fairly simple, precise laws of motion, they became part of nature. I expect the same will happen with human consciousness. It seems mysterious and inexplicable by physics now - but it may not always be so.

I don't see how, unless you extend the sense of physics up to accept that the TOE is arithmetic, and physics is a branch of machine's psychology. Primitive matter seems to me mysterious and inexplicable, but comp explains why machines cannot avoid the beliefs in its appearance.



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