On 8 June 2014 10:08, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
That's OK. We all get a bit carried away at times. > > 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.
