On Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:24:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:39:21 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Mar 2014, at 21:40, [email protected] wrote: > > > I've asked questions about method. You have not answered them. You say you > have been trying to understand me. I believe you have been trying. But what > you haven't been doing, is trying to understand me at all. Evidence? Well, > is there a single instance in all our discussion where you say "ok, so is > this what you mean? I can see what you are thinking. OK, I don't agree, but > let's work this through on your terms, and I believe we can do that , > because I believe the science is robust. Let's do that, and through doing > that, let us take that slightly scenic view together, off the beaten track; > walk with me and I'll escort you back to where I am already. Because there > are many paths, but only one landscape." > > Or words to that effect. > > > And I get it, that you don't understand what I am thinking, and there's > likely a consensus around that too, that I'm not being coherent. > > > Well, thanks for answering for me. I might indeed have some difficulty > seeing your point here. Usually I prefer to separate philosophical analysis > from the technical points. That is why I separate also completely the > question of the truth of comp and its consequences from the question as to > know if comp does lead to such consequences. > > > > > And I'm accommodating that and answering that, above. How could you get > what I'm asking while cloaked in the Popperian view as true. > > > I don't feel so much cloaked in the Popperian view. It has been been > refuted by John Case, notably (showing that Popper was doing science in his > own term, paradoxically).ime > > > Bruno - how do you mean this? > > > In the paradoxical way, as showing that popper has a point, but that it > should not be taken too much seriously. "0+x = x" is hardly refutable, yet > a *very interesting and fundamental* "scientific" idea. > > > > You have consistently defined science in popper terms? > > > It is mine, or Socrates one. Popper insists rightly on this, but you can > see this as common sense. This has not prevented Popper to take some > physicalism for granted, though, and Popper is far from being the most > Popperian scientist. But then I have rarely seen a philosopher following > his own philosophy. > OK, this time I'm going to go and find you untold quotes of you referring to popper, in your papers, in your talks and so on. Saying you accept popper. I'd do the computer is consciousness thing at the same time.
> > > You've defined theory in conjectural terms. > > > Theory, or just belief. the theory that you have parents is a theory. You > need to assume it without proof. the same for the existence of sun and moon. > > > > You've defined the terms for evaluation and criteria for acceptance - of a > theory - multidimensionally in popper terms in line with dimensions of > popperian philosophy itself. You've rejected or said you don't understand, > wherever and whenever I have spoken as if in reference to something other > than popper. You've claimed something is science because testable, and > testable as falsifiable, and all of this nothing added or subtracted from > boiler plate popperianism. > > > If something is testable, it is science. But if something is not testable, > it is not necessarily bad science. > well you have the same views as popper on anything philosophy of science I've seen. so it's the same cloak whatever :O) > > > > > > You've acknowledged popperianism as the best explanation in various ways, > in various contexts, in various places. > > > Just an interesting and important feature of science, but not as a > definitive criterion. I don't think this exist. > > > > Most of my lines of argument that you typically return a blank on involve > a criticism of assumptions you are building in, that assume popper as true? > > > Partially true. I can use it when I talk to Popperian, but I am not that > much Popperian. > > > > I don't remember you acknowledging a single point as even understood. I > don't remember you changing a major inbuilt assumption of popper, some of > which I've pointed at agaain and again, some of which you were explicitly > putting at the centre of a theory. You didn't complain at the popper > linkage....on the contrary the indicate fun has been you acknowledged and > applied popper faithfully and regarded doing so as a virtue. > > > OK. > > > > > Now you say you regard popper as refuted. > > > Only if you take him literally, which I do not. I just do science, not > philosophy of science. > > > > > > Did I just refute popper in your view? > > > Why? No. I don't see it. John Case did it, at least in theory: > , Case was philosophy standard....mine is science standard. Would you mind actually reading it please..it's only a few lines in the middle? > > CASE J. & NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by > Popperian > machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New-York, > Buffalo. > > You might find help in studying also: > > > CASE J. & SMITH C., 1983, Comparison of Identification Criteria for > Machine Inductive > Inference. In Theoretical Computer Science 25,.pp 193-220. > > > > > I don't think that's only a refutation of popper. Nor is it the only > refutation of popper. I think - or I theorized as part of the effort - that > I would seek to provide something that'd be my best shot at something that > you would get. For being also, something that you'd pretty immediately see > was true in lots of ways that directly connected to things your reasoning, > or the standard reasoning behind, also say to be true. > > > A reasoning cannot be true, only valid. propositions, like axioms and > theorems can be said to be true, or false. usually we cannot know that for > sure, but we can believe them, and they can be true. > > > > > I thought I was giving something there that can sit beneath things, at > least potentially. Beneath logic. Arithmetic. Something also that can > reinforce, and prove things, and generate empirical predictions from > things, not previously possible so directly to do. > > > But it is too high level and unclear for me. I am a simple minded > mathematician. I understand 9+1=10, and not much more. > > > > > Very ambitious hopefulness. I know. I have to be willing to look a fool, > for being wrong. Or even made a fool for being right. > > > You are just unclear to me. I still don't know if you got the technical > point, from which we might do some philosophy. But we shopuld not do > philosophy when doing science at the same time, as this leads to confusion > of genres. > > > > > But in a way it is predictive. Contingent on you....being in the role of > objective reality. What you say is true will be true. To the extent I'm > right that's going to be a reversal moment for you, a healing moment....I > hope. > > Apologies if I just lost you Bruno > > > But I don't even see what you missed. > > > > > I certainly don't believe anything in the sense of believing it true. I > prefer to just make clear the assumptions, and reason from there, until I > found a contradiction.e > > > You know the popperian criteria of what is true, accommodates this fully. > > > Popper has a criterion for truth? > If that is true, then Popper missed what science is all about. > I don't think there are any truth criterion in science. > > > > > <blockquote class="gma > > ... -- 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/d/optout.
