On 21 Mar 2015, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> I remember a long discussion where John ended up changing his
claim that step 3 was wrong to it just being trivial. But then he
still refused to keep reading. At this point I decided he was not
serious about the issue.
It's been well over 3 years so I've long since forgotten what those
3 steps were
We discuss an argument since three years, and you succeed in not being
able to remind those steps.
You are just proving that you don't have a scientific mind, and
believe what some one else is saying.
Please invite that someone else to present an argument.
and I have no intention of wasting my time rereading it,
Which means that you have a prejudice. Well, that was clear from you
non-argumentation since the start.
but I do know that about half what Bruno says on this list are
platitudes and tautologies (the man who sees Washington will turn
out to be the man who sees Washington)
I have never said something like that. So you want to prove that I say
platitude, and your first and unique example is already a lie.
dressed up in a pompous formalism,
UDA is AUDA without formalism. I got UDA very early in my childhood,
explained it at school without formalism, and have never had any
complain about "pompous formalism".
AUDA is the translation in arithmetic, in the continuation of the work
of Turing,Post, Gödel ... Solovay, and many others.
and the other half is just silly (intelligence is not needed to do
intelligent things).
Again, I have never said anything like that: I guess you are either
lying, or you have again abstract from the (big) nuance I put between
intelligence and competence. I might indeed have said that competence
does not need intelligence, and that intelligence, on the contrary, is
needed for competence or competence development, which is something
entirely different.
You are blinded by the prejudices, and stuck by the fact that after
having repeated lies for so long, it is virtually impossible for you
to admit you might have been wrong. I guess it is the same for the one
who influenced you, as now we know it was not your thinking (as you
often said that you have not even read my papers and books, under your
own admission).
Also, the last ten questions I have given to you were not answered.
The last one concerned the protocol with the cup of coffee offered in
W and M to the reconstituted guy. The question was, to the guy in
Helsinki: "what is the expectation of having soon the private personal
experience of drinking a cup of coffee?".
Bruno
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.
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.
