On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com 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. >> > > Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy or .nice like "yeah mother fucker > I'm with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread!" > > Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. > > What about the issue itself though? > >> 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. >> > > Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is > can replace < organA >with <majorRevolutioninFieldA> + <majorRevoltion in > field B>....+..+...<major revolution in field N> > > One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that > differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of > computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience > consciousness in my head, why not my liver? > > > > >> 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.> >> > > > So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because > there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at > some point involving god and something else? > > This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus > composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them > would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. > > Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't > mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at > no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in > terms of comp at all. > > What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, > has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way > now from they believe in comp. > > I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And > the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels > someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a > zebra? > > Or do I miss the point? > > > >> >> >> >> and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on >> comp, >> >> What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a >> problem (except J.P. Delahaye)? >> > > > Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? > Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? > > What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is > that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless > they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: > > Scientist believes comp= --> Bruno's criteria is assuming-com --> brunos's > UDA follows --> Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows > > > > --> MWI follows > > > > --> Infinite dreams follows > > * So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? > > >> 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). >> > If someone has said they accept the UDA you're good to say they accept it. But it isn't going to be right to say that someone accepts your theory if they accept comp. Because they might not. This is a problem, because the other thing you do is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. So you are dominating people.
Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in extre dimensional reality? Do theybelieve in MWI the infinite multiverse of dreams? What are the other consequences of the theory. Run me through 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). >> > No that's not right. There are huge chains of unrefuted logic out there. People don't sign up to those chains, they sign up to what they accept. Scientists might reject comp if they hear what you've got to say. A large number would not find that you sought to dominate their options in comp very scientific. The problem here Bruno, is you act like they have responsibility to automatelly go into that process with you, or they are in a position in which they assume comp, and now they have to find a fault in your reasoning, or they automatically assume UDA. This isn't what happens. No one has give a reason or is obliged to extend what they believe to include your theory. People don't accept things that other people think there's a logical necessity or that they make a logical flow. You realize you are also saying that scientists all accept MWI. You could swing from QM or from comp here. And the blocktime idea. And a lot else. It's pretty clear these aren't true statements. Scientists don't all believe in MWI;. Or Blocktime. They aren't obliged to consider those theories. s Ne a 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. >> > Science is methodological...it's a new kind of philosophy. It can't be encapsulated or even defined in philosophy. Because science evolved out of that, in the same way philosophy evolved out of something, and that something cannot define philosophy, and philosophy cannot define science. I don't think science has solved all problem, but I don't think non-scientific fields have solved pretty much any problem. Science has solved more in tiniest pinky fingernail than all of them combined 10 times over. It's that vast difference that doesn't get explained by stories about science as just a bit more philosophy, all about popper or all about Aristotle. I don't find any theory that sits on philosophical ideas about science very radical. I find you quite radical though. 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). >> > What I'd say is, don't worry about persuading people. Do the work, get the breakthrough that make those people have to come to you. You're not as old as I thought you'd said you were...you don't look beyond 40 or so or maybe a bit more. But whatever, you look youthful and like you've got several more decades in the mortal coal, touch wood. Forget the persuading. If you've already got some intelligent young people that have completed the steps and on board. Then sit down, and look strategically for simplest most interesting development that will get your budget raised and c couple of phd students, that you can reach in your theory within...however long....5 years, 10. Get your head down and put 10,000's hours into your theory. Make it the best most productive period of your life. You look young enough to have enough time left to possible take it all the way to some point where science doesn't have a choice, because your thread is the one with the explosive progress. Persuading isn't important in science...people are hard to persuade. People with their own theories are pretty much impossible to budge because they are in their theories so can't hear you. We're all willing to add new views and change views. We're all to change or drop or adopt, about 99% of our ideas. Because none of them really matter that much to us. We aren't affected by 99% of the changes made to 99% of ideas. But the 1% of our ideas, are the ideas we do care about, and we spend our lives within. It's only 1% but by volume and density and knowledge, it's probably 99% all the rest 1%. We don't change that part on persuasion. Everyone says they do, but no has a precedent. But maybe there's one or 10 precedents. Dig beneath, and > >> >> >> >> 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 y >> > It looks like I was counter-bitching something he threw at me. It's a problem being custard pied. I notice you don't step in...so you seem to tacitly support this behaviour toward me. Anyway it is a problem. It really is. It's incredible to me that you think it's legitimate to go about telling people what they believe, which is what you're doing. If you do this, forcing belief on your theory when no one is oibliged to believe further than comp. It's their choice. You've have to now say scientists all believe in MWI, and it should be totally clear just with that, that this isn't ok. They don't. We know they don't. > ... > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
