On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You tell me you don't read book on theology, > For over a decade I was required to read books on theology, I've probably read more than you, and not one was worth a bucket of warm spit, > > >> > >> If arithmetic "works very well" why do physicists bother to d >> o experiments >> > > > Because it is still infinitely more efficacious. Then arithmetic doesn't work "very well" although I agree that to figure out why a apple pie must exist arithmetic would take a INFINITE (at least) number of calculations. But by itself arithmetic can't even calculate 2+2, it needs a mind to do anything. And a mind needs a brain. And a brain needs matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > Keep in mind the goal: to solve the mind-body problem (in the > computationalist frame). > That's far too ambitious for now, first you've got to explain exactly what the " mind-body problem " is and what sort of answer would cause you to say "the mind body problem is now solved". If somebody found that X caused mind would that satisfy you or would you then ask "why does X cause mind?". Of course you would. >> >> I think it would be closer to the truth to say the laws of logic assume >> the laws of physics not the other way around. > > > > > This is non sense. "laws" assumes logic. > And we like to make assumption that work. And what tells us if they work or not? Observations of the physical world. And what determines the observations of the physical world? The laws of physics. >> >> If the laws of physics were different and whenever 2 rocks (or 2 of >> anything) were brought to our attention and then 2 more rocks were brought >> to our attention then a extra rock always popped into existence then the >> laws of both logic and arithmetic that humans devised would be quite >> different from what we have today. Everyone would say it's intuitively >> obvious that 2+2=5. > > > You confuse > [...] > Somebody who thinks God is a good synonym for arithmetic is in no position to call anyone confused. > > like in your preceding post, logic and arithmetic. Like hell I do! If our logic said X and Y *never* made Z but we when observe the physical world we see that X and Y *always* made Z people would not say the physical world had made a mistake, instead we'd say our logic must be wrong and we'd change it to something that worked. > >> >> >> arithmetic >> can't derive the laws of physics nor can it derive a mind, it can't >> even figure out how much 2+2 is without the help of matter that obeys the >> laws of physics. >> > > > > In which theory > , > with what assumptions > ? > What a remarkably silly thing to say! If I walk over that bridge will it fall down? It depends on what theory you're using and what assumptions you're thinking about. Dumb. > > Then why use also the sense of the word given by those who have > systematically banish or burn alive anyone doing personal research or > harboring some doubts on some dogma. > Why are (strong) atheists so much defending the God theory of those who > imposed it by violence. Why continue the violence? Wow. Mindless rhetoric in hyperdrive I see. 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.
