On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks for illustrating what I just said. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What you just said was: >>>> >>>> " >>>> Most sane people sooner or later realize that the only way to win this >>>> game is not to play it >>>> " >>>> >>>> >>>> And then I just said: >>>> >>>> "If true then the only logical conclusion to make is that >>>> Telmo Menezes >>>> is not sane." >>> >>> >>> It is also possible that I am an outlier in this regard (most sane >>> people...) or that I haven't reached the point where I am sick of >>> playing the game (sooner or later). >>> >>> It is further possible that what I mean by "this game" is the game of >>> arguing about the validity of the UDA (and please spare me from your >>> usual jokes where you go to wikipedia looking for meaning of the >>> acronym. Yes yes it's super funny). >>> >>> This is your usual modus operandi and I am sick of it. I say modus >>> operandi because, judging from certain contributions you made to this >>> mailing list it is quite clear that you do not have the limited >>> intelligence required to honestly make such mistakes. That would be >>> forgivable, but here, and more importantly as you do when discussing >>> Bruno's theories, you argue in bad faith. >>> >>> Finally, yes it could be that I am not sane. Unlike you, I consider >>> this possibility. The fact that you do not consider it is precisely >>> what makes you a religious fundamentalist. Just because your religion >>> has no name, doesn't mean that it does not exist. >>> >>> I'll spare you the trouble and paste you usual bromide. Here you go: >>> >>> "Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never >>> heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12." >>> >>> This is precisely the sort of manipulative bullshit that religious >>> people use. The implicit appeal to common sense. The suggestion that >>> your opponent is childish. Anything but directly addressing the ideas >>> of your interlocutor. >>> >>> You argue in bad faith, you destroy honest discussion to score >>> internet points and you bully people that were nothing but nice to >>> you. >>> >> >> Rather accurate description I'm afraid. >> >> I think John Clark's religion has a name, though, it is >> Materialism----which includes Weak Materialism: the belief in some primary >> matter and/or its corresponding epistemological version: Physicalism >> (physics is the fundamental science, physics can't be reduced to anything >> else simpler). >> >> I use "weak materialism" for that religion, to oppose it to the use of >> "materialism" in philosophy of mind, which is that not only matter/force >> exists, but only matter/force exists. >> >> Note that mechanism is what makes materialism working well, as Diderot and >> the modern materialist and Naturalist usually think, but only up to some >> point as materialism stumbles down quickly on the mind/body problem. I think >> Descartes got the correct (monist) answer, but in his meditation, he needs >> to assume that God is good, which, even if true, cannot be assumed in a >> scientific derivation. But I think he got the main point though. Too bad he >> never finished his text "À la Recherche de la Vérité". Too bad he dismissed >> logic and neoplatonism, but there are historical contingencies which might >> explain this. >> >> Note that it is possible to disbelieve in primary matter and still be >> physicalist. (using a particular or special universal number + some oracle). >> >> When we assume mechanism, it is up to the materialist to explain what is >> primary matter and how it get the focus of consciousness, and it is up to >> the physicalist to explain what is the rôle, for consciousness, of the >> fundamental laws of physics, and why they can't be explained in term of the >> (infinities of) computations (measure). > > > Explanation is easy. Prediction is hard.
I think it really depends. For example, it is very easy to predict that the sun will rise in the morning, but it took humanity a lot of time to come up with a good explanation of why this is the case. A more modern set of examples: - Neural correlates are easy to find, explaining how the brain actually works is super-hard; - Epidemiological studies keep predicting all sorts of things about nutritional habits, while we seem quite far from having reasonable explanations in most cases (too much complexity from metabolic pathways, epigentic interactions etc etc) This trend seems to only be more accentuated with certain machine learning models, that are increasingly good at predicting all sorts of things while remaining black boxes for explanatory purposes. > Physicalist can predict that > cutting off oxygen from your brain will cause loss of consciousness. Non-physicalists can make the same prediction (in the sense that you say "loss of consciousness"). What's the problem? The disagreements might start when you ask questions like: does the universe exist when I'm not conscious? But that doesn't affect the phenomenological world, no problem. > Explanations in terms of infinities of computations are like physics > explaining things as "A consequence of the state of the universe and the > laws of physics." I have read a few papers from physicists delving into social science problems, and what they say is not so different from what you state above :) Telmo. > Brent > > >> >> Some people, when they learn that you are open to the idea that (weak) >> materialism is wrong, will believe, for a time, that you are actually open >> to the fairy tales, superstition and magic, and so believe that you are mad. >> When they realize the error, and that immaterialism can also be only some >> mathematicalism, which usually assumes *less* than physicalism, it is too >> much embarrassing for them to admit. >> Then they hate you cordially when they eventually understand that they >> were the one still using magic in their religion. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for illustrating what I just said. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
