On 10 Mar 2015, at 09:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:01 AM, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Non-materialism is not the denial of matter, it just places it as
an epiphenomenon.
it's irrelevant if mater is fundamental or not, either way it
wouldn't change the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not
falsifiable.
Nor is a materialistic theory falsifiable. The only falsifiable
theories I know of are the matter-agnostic ones.
The only materialistic theories I know of are related to the
emergence of consciousness from matter, and none are falsifiable.
Some have a homeopathy-level level of seriousness, like the one that
claims that consciousness does not actually exist.
> Darwinism is a computer science theory. It works on DNA but it
also works on solutions to the travelling salesman problem.
I don't recall that Darwin solved the travelling salesman problem,
Nor do I recall him saying anything about DNA, gene expression or,
for that matter, particle physics. But his theory is so good (and
abstract) that it remains plausible independently of the substrate.
but never mind, are you trying to make the case that arithmetic is a
non materialistic theory?
I was trying to make the case that most successful theories are
mater-agnostic. I am not sure that arithmetic is a theory. What's
your point?
> If we are living in the dream of a giant turtle, then general
relativity is a valid theory about the rules inside this dream.
And the theory that we are living in the dream of a giant turtle is
a example of a non materialistic theory that is not falsifiable, and
so is the theory that only biology can generate consciousness, and
so is the theory that God exists and created the universe but uses
all His infinite power to make sure we can never prove it.
Agreed.
> the hypothesis that consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter.
That is a materialist theory,
That is incorrect. No consciousness theory is a materialist theory
because I can't measure consciousness in my lab nor can I prove what
is and what is not consciousness from logic or mathematics.
I agree that no falsifiable theory of consciousness can be
materialistic. A lot of people disagree and argue for neural
activity correlates, for example. They don't seem to understand the
fundamental problem with this idea, which always baffles me.
> and it's also peepee (not falsifiability, no explanatory power, no
ability to predict anything).
That is correct.
> You yourself said that you suspect that consciousness is fundamental
Yes that is my hunch, but I'll never be able to prove it's true and
you'll never be able to prove it's false, so it's not a scientific
idea, it's just a philosophical guess.
I tend to agree, but I value my own personal experience so "guess"
is maybe a bit too dismissive.
> and you yourself proclaimed to be a great admirer of evolutionary
theory.
I am indeed a great admirer of evolutionary theory; what educated
person wouldn't be?
>So you must believe that Darwinism does not depend on mater being
fundamental.
I do believe Darwinism does not depend on mater being fundamental,
but what has that to do with the fact that a non-materialistic
theory is not falsifiable?
Nothing, but if you frase it in a certain way (like you did), you
make it sound like materialist theories are more credible somehow.
This is done by taking advantage of the fact that most people
conflate materialism with scientific rigour, without realising that
they are falling for the XIX century positivist trap -- something
you should care a lot about since you despise the ignorance of our
ancestors so much.
My view is that modern science mostly gives us no reason to prefer
materialism or non-materialism. Bruno's Universal Dovetailer
Argument convinced me that there are empirical reasons to prefer non-
materialism, given that I find computationalism highly plausible,
and his argument shows that computationalism and materialism are
incompatible. I know you don't accept the argument, but I haven't
found any flaw in it (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
Thanks, and thanks for having search a flaw.
My personal experience of reality also makes me lean towards non-
materialism. This is NOT a scientific argument, of course.
>> A language is useless if you're the only one who knows it,
and Bruno's terms are used nowhere except on this list.
> The same is true of all technical acronyms. At some point they
were only known inside a restrict group of people.
Most technical acronyms and all unnecessary ones come from 2 groups:
1) Government bureaucrats.
2) People who want to make their dull old shallow ideas sound
exciting new and deep, the sort of people who write FPI instead of
"I don't know" or "beats me".
The third group is when you keep talking about things like the
Universal Dovetailer Argument and eventually you are tired of
writing 29 characters every time you want to mention it, and prefer
writing 3. Even if you disagree with the UDA, it's not a topic that
is likely to die on this mailing list in the foreseeable future, so
why not save ourselves the trouble? I accept that you disagree, but
you also wish to disrespect. I don't see how that is wise. We can
treat each other with respect, no matter our differences of opinion.
It is especially weird in the computer science and logic context,
where acronyms are invented all the time, like LISP, PA, G, ZF, ZFC,
S4Grz, PROLOG, C++, etc.
UD is the name of a program. UDA is the name of the basic Argument to
get the understanding and conception that arithmetic might be more
fundamental than physics.
And the FPI is utterly fundamental. It is the brick of both UDA, and a
motivation for the []p & <>t variants, the material modalities. The
one for which I invite people to compare with the one inferred from
nature. And a long time ago, I predicted that they would be refuted
before 2000.
I understand that the global FPI is weird, but is it really weirder
than Everett, well, I show the tool to formulate such questions in a
mathematically precise way.
Some philosopher are angry because they see this as an intrusion of
science on their territory perhaps, but computationalism is exactly
what allows this, in both metaphysics and theology.
Bruno
Telmo.
John K Clark
--
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.
--
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.
