On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually
pasted the key lines to the top of the post, and added comments.
Clearly indicating that for me, the salient point about the article
was that the distinguishing features of Salvia have now been
identified, and that they closely correspond with much of what Bruno
says and vocabularly around 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the
machine, and so on and so forth.
Nice.
It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be
the case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my
position. When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp
Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough
you will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist
"Jacques Arsac" who said "As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in
STRONG AI. He wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp) book on
this. But even among the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional
view.
Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ
which cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right
functions at the right level.
Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with
the premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence
of a designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by
the fact that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their
execution, in the solution of the diophantine equations.
and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on
comp,
What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having mention
a problem (except J.P. Delahaye)?
Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did,
actually, but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three
and acknowledged that he was counting the 3-views instead of the 1-
views (like John Clark). In brussels, they have invoked a philosopher
who judged the thesis not receivable (which means not even a private
defense: they have never heard me, even in private) from his personal
conviction (and later invoke the "free-exam" principle for that, like
if the free-exam is the right for professor to give bad note to
student without questioning them).
So here I would say that PGC was just saying the normal thing. Most
rationalists believe in comp, and what follows has been peer reviewed
enough. (Then humans are humans, and the notoriety of some people
makes ideas having to wait they died before people talk and think, and
special interests and all that, so I admit the results are still
rather ignored, though some people seems to be inspired by them also,
hard to say).
The so-called radicality of what I say is in the mind of those who
thought that science has solved all problem, and that it has notably
decided between Plato and Aristotle (almost the genuine difference
believer/non-believer), and that comp explains the mind and its
relation with matter.
I show that this is not true, and that if we can accept that comp and
computer science does indeed explain a large part of the mind,
including knowledge and perhaps consciousness, it can only succeed on
this if it explains the observable by a complex sum on all
computations seen from the possible machine's points of view. (and
that can be handled mathematically if we accept some definitions).
you are the one's being less than honest, intellectually. Not me.
I disagree, because you insinuate that there is a problem without
showing one, besides the fact that you may dislike comp, bet it is
false, etc.
At least Richard has the honesty to recognize his use of a god of the
gap.
And please don't take my word for comp and its consequences, just try
to understand. It is not easy, due to our quasi-instinctual
aristotelianism, but it is neither that much difficult (probably
easier for those who remember their dreams, and dig on the spiritual
side).
Sometimes, I think you got the main point, but have a critics at some
metalevel. That might be right, but up to now, you did not succeed in
making it clear for me, nor others, I think. You acknowledge that, so
good luck for being more understandable.
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
