On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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. > >> >> > the 'rise' = 'risk'
-- 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.
