On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:15:32 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:47:05 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:40:35 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: >>>> >>>> His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that >>>> problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make >>>> a >>>> conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing >>>> so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, >>>> which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might >>>> be >>>> necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must >>>> be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's >>>> intelligent. >>>> >>>> That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - >>>> >>>> >>>> No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think "assuming primary >>>> materialism" is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. >>>> Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; >>>> but >>>> nobody tries to even define "primary matter" they just look to see if >>>> another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. >>>> >>>> >>>> But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics->psychology is assumed, >>>> and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a >>>> matter of "another layer". >>>> >>> >>> Well yes, but if Brent's illustration reflects the actual >>> thinking, Bruno's position is logically unviable. Because although >>> physics-->psychology is assumed..that word 'assumed' sits in a special case >>> tense. It means 'for practical purposes' and does not mean 'we know what's >>> fundamental and it's matter so we totally reject the possibility maths >>> or concepts or sexy fantasies are actually what's fundamental' >>> >>> So it's a resolvable situation. For Bruno to take his stance, it has to >>> be the case what Brent says is fundamentally wrong and a brutal dogma of >>> 'knowing what we can't know' grips science in iron fist. >>> >>> I don't think anything like that stands up. All the >>> major scientists wont to nurse a public profile or top up the pension with >>> a popular science book are very clear on this matter. >>> >> k >> Another major logical problem with this, I mentioned a while back in an >> earlier thread. The whole position that matter is non-primary or non-real >> or whatever, is effectively trivial and redundant UNLESS and UNTIL that >> hypotheses produces major scientific developments. Until then it has the >> value of "seed idea" simply because, it does not tell us about something >> that is therefore different in physical law as we find it. Therefore >> notionally we can accept the hypothesis but immediately having done so, we >> have to put in place where physical law was until just a moment ago, a >> proxy object with identical features. So it's meaningless for just itself. >> It needs to produce or "hello proxy, or are you the other one?" >> > > With that said, I would totally agree and applaud that the human condition > is fragile and prone to beliefs such as "I am open minded about the status > of matter" when actually for all practical purposes the BEHAVIOUR > and actual receptiveness is...like the idea itself of non-primary matter > being no more than a proxy object so trivial.....identical in every way to > what would be if matter as primary was assumed as a dogma. > > This is absolutely true in my view. Reason being, assumptions > and beliefs may be rational and conscious in the immediate sense, but in > terms of their influence in time and space....visualized as a kind of > landscape representing all the possible developments and branches and > outcomes, with probability of happening representing as larger or > smaller axial cross sectional diameters of thread sizes....some > developments and outcomes are larger and happen a lot more often in the > multiverse than others. And a critical variable within this, has to > be things like receptiveness, what we focus on, what we are interested in, > what our biases are, hang-ups, cash-investments, dirty secrets,...the whole > shebang. > > It's that mess that decides the likelihood, and so it's a very > real problem that the thread in which we entertain, so plough resources > into so get science from the non-primary status of matter hypothesis, may > be minisicule...not visible at all to the naked mindseye., While the > possible outcomes involving sticking with what we regard as 'assuming > matter fundamental for practical puposes' is massive..such that you'd need > a multiverse just to get one up Bruno's channel. > > That's a real problem. And what this is about, is "unrealized > assumptions". Because a major class of these objects, are NOT THOUGHTS, > they are effective, consequential STRUCTURES in time and space that are > very real things, in terms of what is really going to be long > term determining influence of everything taken together, including our > rational ideas, but in time and space everything else as well. > > Unrealized assumptions are not just what we think, but what we don't > think., What's Rumsfeld doing these days anyway>? > Final word: on the other hand, in saying this point, I am now in the ironical position of defending Bruno's own position, with exactly what he's persistently refused to accept - in fact persistently said he's no idea what I'm talking about, all along.
-- 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.
