On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/04/2017 7:24 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Quentin Anciaux": >>> How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove >>> anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's >>> contradictory. >>> >>> # David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" >>> (and also about "introspective measurements") >>> >>> streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/68/035.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> That is a rather good introduction to quantum logic. Although I disagree >>> with Putnam and his idea that quantum mechanics makes logic empirical. It >>> shows that some logic are empirical, but as computationalism illustrates, >>> there are deep classical logical reason why some logic are empirical, >>> others >>> are psychological, etc. >>> >>> But Finkelstein is always very interesting and clear, it is a pleasure to >>> disagree with him. Logic is shown empirical here, but only in the >>> physicalist context. >>> >>> >>> Then why doesn't the application of Occam's razor make computationalism >>> otiose? >>> >>> >>> You lost me. I don't see why you ask this. Occam's razor suggests we use >>> the >>> fewer number of assumption. Computationalism use, in fine, only RA, and >>> computationalism at the metalevel. All physical theories use RA + many >>> stronger mathematical axioms + some physical axioms. >>> >>> >>> Not at all. Physics does not assume arithmetic or mathematics, it derives >>> them. >>> >>> >>> Give the proof, then. >> >> It's "vaporware science", just like the first principles that explain >> emergentism. People allude to these things, but you can never seem to >> find the relevant article... :) > > > That is just an empty personal attack. I do not call it an "ad hominem" for > good reason. I suggest that both you and Bruno look up the meaning of an "ad > hominem" argument.
I apologise for the personal attack. Give us the meat of your arguments and I promise to read with an open mind. In my case, I am mostly interested in the first principles that allow you to claim that consciousness emerges from complex interactions between physical entities. Telmo. > > Bruce > > -- > 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.
