On 26 Apr 2017, at 23:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
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.
As Quentin reminds us, we just assert their incompatibility. So we
have to wait for most testing and the development. Could take a long
time.
Bruno
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.
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.
