On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist.
Isn't that obvious? :-)
Who "we" ? The universal numbers?
Your consciousness here-and-now is, for you, obvious. I grant that.
Nothing more.
I bet on this, and believe such things locally, but that's belong to
what I ask a theory or a principle to explains.
But I agree we must be careful not be led astray with unfounded
'interpretations' of the obvious. The wise man properly discerns
what is clearly obvious (eg. that we exist, and we exist in a
present moment)
Again, I think that you confuse the obviousness of the 1-self here and
now, and the "we" and "moment" notion, which are not obvious, and part
of what we want explain.
and unwarranted 'interpretations' of the obvious (e.g. that the sun
orbits the earth in the present moment).
In science we know that the wise man is always wrong, so we prefer to
say that we assume what we find obvious in our heart, perhaps.
Nothing is obvious in the fundamental studies.
When we make that distinction properly we can then develop and test
theories that accurately describe reality.
That's the method I attempt to use in my book on Reality....
It is not the method of science. We prefer to propose clear theories,
that is theories based on already shared theories, and principles that
we can take in the provisional way.
Bruno
Edgar
On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:38:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:53, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What
more convincing proof could there be?
One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start.
If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure nonsense
that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of reality.
The point is that certain assumptions lead to certain conclusions.
If the conclusions invalidate the assumptions, then the correct
response is to throw out the original assumptions as invalid. Bruno
starts from the assumption that consciousness is a form of
computation and draws certain inferences. This isn't what comp
"claims" it's what the argument shows, given the assumptions. The
only way to falsify it is to show that one of the assumptions is
wrong, or that there is a flaw in the reasoning that leads to the
conclusions.
Yes. At least if we want to do science and see the others
criticizing the work. the problem of Edgar is that he believes that
some things are obvious.
Bruno
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
