On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > "My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the > amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) "yes > doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for > giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor". > By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis > much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not > prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we > know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong > hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as reminding us that Plato was > Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory" was not Aristotelian (at least in > the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued > to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends). > > So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp theory > (which is arguably a very old idea). > > Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even take > offense that we can imagine not following 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. > > > Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a > flaw if you think there is one). > > I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, > I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is > admittedly counter-intuitive. > > > > > Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in > extre dimensional reality? > > > First, I don't express myself in that way. > > For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its > logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that > matter goes on in extradimensional reality. > > With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine if > its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or has a > very large cardinal. > > Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary arithmetic > (like Robinson arithmetic). > > I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and > the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology. > > > > Do theybelieve in MWI > > > This is ambiguous. > > In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism", as a > (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become > skeptical) on both a creator and a creation. > > So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory. > > What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the > set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in > the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That > is not mine, that is standard material. > > You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the > beginning. > > > Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it. > > > You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. > Russell Standish read it...he understood. > > So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. >
I obviously shouldn't have said this, so am sorry for doing so. But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't responded to, and I would demonstrate the reason I'd stopped responding was that Bruno presented 'no case to answer'. Silence from PGC. PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is it...the guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in here? When has he ever described anything he believes in, in plain English? Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at explaining what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value their dizzy comp experiences, my arguments ignored by Bruno....and all of this despite it being me to be mentioning a take on falsification that the vast majority of science, historically and now would agree with? And now this new issue, with PGC and Bruno making constructive arguments about scientists accepting certain arguments, and so by some sort of logic accepting Bruno's theory. Which happens to involve things like eternal life for us, consciousness not being generated by our brains...direct links to MWI. That latest argument, I simply rejected by pointing out that not everyone does accept MWI, who accept QM. These are really really controversial claims, and there's no way it's reasonable to think that if someone accepts comp as some high level proposal, that if they were forced to choose between that and all of the above, they can be relied on to stick with comp. And if they can't be relied on...if there's a reasonable prospect scientists will rather reject comp than accept infinities of dreams, and eternal life, and consciousness outside the body...if there's a reasonable chance they'll rather reject comp than accept that, then the thing to do WITH INTEGRITY is acknowledge that, and not be going around saying they accept something. I'm dropping this now. I'm technically saying sorry for calling someone a liar, but for everything else I think the integrity issues are somewhere else. And it really doesn't matter if you all want to gang up and not see any of these issues. Collective blindspots are hardly anything new in the world. -- 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.
