On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 2014-07-29 16:30 GMT+02:00 John Clark <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> whatever a computer does is "just" the movement of electrons around >>>>> circuits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> And whatever a human brain does is "just" the movement of molecules >>>> and ions around neurons. That word "just" sure covers a lot! >>>> >>> >>> > Hence the quote marks. Don't worry I "just" love being quoted out of >>> context. >>> >> >> I wasn't trying to criticize you, I understand that you were using the >> word "just" in the same way I was. >> >> > If that proves a computer can't be conscious then it also proves that >>>> humans aren't conscious; and except for me maybe that's the case. >>>> >>> >>> > It supposedly proves that the materialist paradigm doesn't explain >>> consciousness >>> >> >> Then it also explains why a human being can never be conscious, but I >> know for a fact that at least one human being is. And if changing the >> material in my brain changes my consciousness (and it most certainly does) >> and changes in consciousness changes the material in my brain (and it most >> certainly does) then in what sense does materialism fail to explain >> consciousness? >> >> > according to comp >>> >> >> I can't comment on that, "comp" means whatever Bruno wants it to mean, >> and that changes from day to day. >> >> > Sure Liar Clark... as said a million times now, comp is a shorthand for > *computationalism* and it has always meant that... and always will... the > only retarded changing the meaning day to day is you. > I applaud your firmness on this as his tireless repetition has the same effect as spam/advertising sensationalism... regardless of the vacuity, you just start singing the jingle in your head. The leaders of the chart on this list are: 1) Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. 2) There is nothing in step 3 to understand. 3) (Some final personal attack to distract from discussion closing the post, like:) Bruno Marchal is not a logician. The repetition is low resolution brainwash. I appreciate a lot John Clark's contributions on astrophysics and that he engages UDA up to step 3 however, but I think everybody can see why his "arguments" always culminate in personal attack. Better than to keep reacting like monkey to his post, which I do, would be imho for the list to focus on precise prerequisites, exercises, reading lists to get firmer grasp of AUDA, and make that more universally accessible than perhaps overemphasizing Step 7 and MGA. Yes, I know everybody comes at it from differing background, but AUDA with more generalized, clear sequence of pedagogical felicity conditions would be cool. I know it's out there in bits and pieces in different threads; but to bundle and focus it would be nice. It would be a fine step forward, if the list and Bruno could advance on sharing these kinds of questions, "just do it" style, instead of servicing the meta spam and droning on about UDA, Step 7 and MGA. Maybe resurrecting an old thread that I haven't seen could stop having to start from scratch. Just my virtual 2 cents. Apologies for length, but not much time :-) PGC -- 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.
