On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM, <[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. >
Show, don't tell... > 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' > Yes, that is what "assumed" means. My problem is not with making the assumption, it's not being aware that you are making it. > > 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'm not sure I follow. What statements by Brent and Bruno are in direct contradiction? Neither is Bruno claiming that comp is true, nor Brent that it is false, as far as I can tell. > > 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. > Bruno wrote logical arguments. I don't know if he's right, but I couldn't find a flaw in is reasoning so far (for what that's worth). If a refutation is published, I'll read it. If you write an email refuting it, I promise to read it too. What else matters? Cheers Telmo. > -- > 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. > -- 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.
