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. > one further point about the long running argument itself. I can remember a long time ago, after Russell mentioned his approach to building on nothingness at the root of his thinking (i.e. a first beginning in nothingness). I responsed with my personal opinion that he was doing it wrong. I didn't sneakily try to flatter him into a discussion intending to ambush him later on. I said what I thought. He either missed it, or decided it wasn't a useful/knowledgeable position. Whatever. He ignored it. And I didn't badger him..I've not mentioned it since. But Bruno, and others, have chosen to argue the point. If people think it's bullshit (as opposed to pretending French sense), or whatever....they shouldn't encourage the discussion. I'm not badger people...if they aren't interested in what I have to say, I'll move on and say something thing sometime. But just as I don't expect anyone to back down other than when they see the point, no one should expect me to. All I've had back from Bruno....99% of the time, is blanket dismissal that he's no clue what I'm talking about. That's just going to make me take him at his word, and look for a better way to say it.
> >> > -- 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.
