On 4/26/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You can't invalidate an argument by invoking your own theory (which seems to assume that there is some world). Like Quentin said, when a world is assumed, it is only to get a reductio ad absurdum, in the computationalist theoretical frame.
I appreciate that. But as I see it we have two theories: One supposes there is a physical world and we observe it. Within this theory there are an enormous number of detailed, precise, surprising, accurate predictions. The other makes only a few very general, qualitative predictions (uncertainty, linearity,...). It purportedly explains some things about consciousness (e.g. limitations of self-knowledge) although this is qualitative and is generally untestable. But it supposedly makes the first theory otiose.
Of course in science we don't need to choose between these theories - we can wait and see what develops. But claims that the second has proven the first one wrong seem premature.
Brent -- 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.
