On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp >> >> The word 'pretend' here is a "false friend". Bruno is assuming that this >> word works the same in English as in French. It doesn't. >> >> He means only modestly "Can you at least confirm that you CLAIM to have >> a refutation of comp?" >> > thanks for this Kim....I didn't know the difference. But at the same time, > I wasn't too bothered about the meaning, but more that here things were > again exactly where they were right at the start. I meant right at the very > first post I made on this matter. > > I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that contains > no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. Consciousness was > never understood...and it's reasonable to think it is the more important > mystery of computation, than anything contained in the discovery of > computers, so far. It would be like, as I said, assuming something vast > about matter in 1700 before anything about matter had been discovered, and > building streams of logic from that along. What we'd have missed out on, > was the discovery of chemistry, the scientific method and eventually atoms > and QM, if we'd gone a way like that. Why would it be any different here? > I think the confusion between views may hard to straighten out. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with making a conjecture that is short on knowledge. The issue is about what can reasonably be done with any conclusions. If everyone is reasonable, it can be a fruitful contribution over time. The rise, as I mentioned before, is that people won't be reasonable. And so small and large theories show up that build over the top of that low knowledge conjecture. And they are exciting theories, of course, because they appear to be in the scientific stream but are no longer constrained the way science has been to date, to mass hard knowledge at the base before building over the top. So they are free to go anywhere, and they typically do. And no one is looking too hard at that original conjecture, because now it looks like a hard historical link built into a major arterial thread of hard science. And later on - down the line - predictions, new technology and major advances dry up.
> > -- 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.
