On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:39:04 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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.o > and I'm not like this guy I hope, because I work at my own theory a long time that involves 'computation', and 'nothingness' though nothing like those words used here. But I'm not ready...and I don't want to do a John Ross or Edgar Owen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkZdTHmX0TQ
> > >> >>> >> -- 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.
