On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:32:56 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Apr 2017, at 20:54, PGC wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 26 Apr 2017, at 00:19, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On 4/25/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish < >> [email protected] >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>>>>> Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is >> >>>>>> the >> >>>>>> hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry >> >>>>>> Bruno, it's >> >>>>>> easier to write for the purpose of this discussion :). You are >> >>>>>> declaring that mind supervene on the physical brain. >> >>>>> That is not it at all. We've clarified with Bruno many times that >> >>>>> computational supervenience is compatible with physical >> >>>>> supervenience. Which is just as well, as otherwise it would be >> >>>>> so much >> >>>>> the worse for computationalism. >> >>>> I have no doubt that the brain is a physical computer, and that >> >>>> computations performed by the brain are no different from any other >> >>>> computations. >> >>>> >> >>>> We are discussing physicalism and computationalism, and if they are >> >>>> compatible or not, correct? >> >>>> >> >>>> Bruce repeatedly makes variation of the claim: "look, the brain is >> >>>> physical and the brain generates consciousness, these are the >> >>>> facts". >> >>>> This is what I am replying to. It's an argument from authority that >> >>>> leaves no space for debate or reasoning. >> >>> >> >>> First, it is not an argument from authority, it is an argument >> >>> made on the basis of all the available evidence -- consciousness >> >>> supervenes on the physical brain. >> >>> >> >>> Second. An argument from authority is not necessarily a reason to >> >>> reject that argument. Because life is short and we cannot be >> >>> experts in absolutely everything, we frequently have to rely on >> >>> authorities -- people who are recognized experts in the relevant >> >>> field. I am confident that when I drive across this bridge it will >> >>> not collapse under the weight of my car because I trust the >> >>> expertise of the engineers who designed and constructed the >> >>> bridge. In other words, I rely on the relevant authorities for my >> >>> conclusion that this bridge is safe. An argument from authority is >> >>> unsound only if the quoted authorities are themselves not reliable >> >>> -- they are not experts in the relevant field, and/or their >> >>> supposed qualifications are bogus. There are many examples of this >> >>> -- like relying on President Trump's assessment of anthropogenic >> >>> global warming, etc, etc. >> >>> >> >>> Third, since it is now clear that the term "physicalism" refers to >> >>> the belief in primary matter, I have never ascribed to >> >>> "physicalism". >> >> >> >> Usually I use "Weak materialism" for the "assumption/belief" in >> >> primary matter. primary means "in need to be assumed"; Something is >> >> "primary" if to get its existence we need to assume it, or >> >> something equivalent. For example, we know since the failure of >> >> logicism that numbers are primary. We cannot derive them from logic. >> > >> > But we can - and did - derive them from observation and manipulation >> > of objects. Numbers came from measuring the size of sheepherds, the >> > steps from one place to another,... You learned them that way at >> > your mother's knee. >> >> I was using "derivation" in the logical or mathematical sense. Size of >> sheepherds can be used for illustration, but if you think we can >> derive numbers from sheep, show me a theory of sheepherds not using >> numbers, and then a logical derivation of number existence from that. >> > > Show us how it is impossible for a herd of sheep or some of their > descendants to learn to define numbers from Van Neumann ordinals say. > > > Why would be that impossible. Comp makes that possible. But I was using > derivation in the logical sense. > > Then it's easier: teach the sheep derivation in some logical calculus. Maybe those sheep are praying to the flying fridge of Salvia god, and they don't know that such powerfully simple machine is flying way too high to hear their prayers.
This was the reason that Jesus was a shepherd. He understood that the sheep's "meh" was a sign of disbelief and skepticism, while everybody else thought that they're just complaining or looking for mates as usual. And also, he seems to have understood that herding sheep was in line with comp in the modesty sense and that being a cowboy was a high political status affair with the big animals, handling the bulls, being masculine etc. and therefore hardly compatible with correct theology. Also, when the sheep finally learn this, it would give you ammunition for the list: it's really easy to split hairs infinitely on physics emerging from computation or not, but not many people will know how to argue with sheep, who don't care about reputation, that can derive formulas from axioms correctly, with appropriate rules of transitions. This also may work as an informal proof that the lists' notion of comp is quite Christian, even though the standard line is that the Christians stole from neo-platonism. How do you know? Fake news? Those sheep learning would be much stronger evidence in pedagogical terms of comp's veracity. The Jesus Shepherd shall return and dissolve all the pettiness of the world. Comp doesn't predict that, but the Christians do, so as brutal as they were, they still contribute to the search for the genuine sheep whisperer. That's why Cantor did good public relations in talking to the church. Good faith in the unification quest and dialogs with the right people. Otherwise we must all prepare for the rule of the flying fridge, be it physicalist, computationalist, or astrologist, not listening to our hopes and pains. That fridge is already making many overweight people suffer under its dominance and it knows that prohibition achieves little. PGC -- 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.
