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 <edga...@att.net> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 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.

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

Reply via email to