On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:57:18 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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 > but would have to hold me hands up to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuM_iSwMof8
> > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>> -- 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.
