2018-06-01 14:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>:
> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > > On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:46, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > > On 1 Jun 2018, at 03:25, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal < <[email protected]>[email protected]> > > > > On 31 May 2018, at 02:33, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Of course something can make some computations unreal, namely their > non-existence in the world. > > Which World? > > > Rhetorical flourish! > > > Not at all. > > You know, God was a nickname for “the ultimate truth we are searching when > doing fundamental science”, and the “blasphemy” was for any invocation and > special use of of concept like “true”, “reality”, “world” … the use of this > is invalid. You could as well invoke miracle. > > So you lack some background in metaphysics and/or what is the scientific > attitude. > > > I think the intellectual battles of the classical era are well behind us. > > > ? > > It was realized a long time ago that these idea are ultimately sterile, > > > Which ideas? The metaphysical question? Yes, the answer to them have been > imposed by terror since 1500 years. That has not solved them. > > > The problems were sterile, and it was realized that there was no useful > question to answer. > > > and the scientific approach has gradually achieved dominance. > > > In the natural science, thanks to the Enlightenment period, made possible > by the jews and muslim metaphysicians who were able to continue the > research in the Middle east for six more centuries. > > But in theology, the least we can say is that the scientific approach has > not yet taken dominance. The choice is still between an inconsistent > materialism or the pope-ayatollah (the boss is right) kind of theories. > > You are not helping science by abandoning the field to the professional > con men. > > > I am certainly not abandoning the field to you! > > > I think you should abandon this outmoded framework for your thinking and > join the rest of the world in the 21st century. > > > You are the one abandoning the scientific attitude here. > > > You cannot appeal to an ontological commitment in science. > > > There is no ontological commitment in phenomenology -- unless you want to > deny the existence of consciousness…. > > > Ah, so you think that the notion of world used by Brent was > phenomenological? > > That makes my point in that case, as physics must becomes > phenomenological, which was all I needed to justify. > > > Physics is, as is all science, based on observation and experiment. The > phenomena are the subject matter of science. > > > Not the fundamental science, which try to infer some simple relations > accounting for the origin and phenomena. > > > The "fundamental science" as you call it is an illusion. There quite > possibly are no simple relations accounting for the origin and the > phenomena. The phenomena have to be described and understood on their own > terms. > > > > But the phenomena are matters of sensory experience, not of abstract > axiomatic reasoning. That, too, was realized a long time ago when Kant's > attempt to make 3-dimensional Euclidean space a necessity of thought failed. > > > Kant failed? Show me the paper. > > > Any textbook on non-Euclidean geometry would suffice. > > Only his premise based on some naive interpretation of the physics of his > time was false. Its main idea is implied and generalised by Mechanism. And > the opposite idea requires a non Turing emulable machine in the body, which > is usually considered as speculative (no evidence at all, and a lot of > strong counterevidences, like the failure of physicalism to link mind and > matter since very long). > > > Physical theories of the brain, based on extensive empirical research, > have linked the mind and consciousness to physical brain activity in > irrefutable ways. > > By saying this you do show that you identify science with Aristotelian > Materialism. That is bad science, and bad philosophy. > > > Sez you. But then, you are no authority...... > > Here is you god, selecting an histories, or a class of histories. How? > Magical power? Then I can no more say yes to the doctor without praying or > something. > > > More empty rhetorical flourishes. We know that when you resort to your > store of empty rhetorical flourishes that you have no answer to the > substantive points that have been made. > > > > *That* is pure rhetorical flourishes. You avoid the reasoning. > > > What reasoning? You did not offer any reasoning. Merely assertions and > rhetorical flourishes. > > > That is simply a lie. > > > You do not offer any argument in the above. It is mere assertion. What you > say elsewhere is irrelevant to the present discussion. > > All what I say has been verified multiple times by independent people in > different countries, and I have given an informal version, accessible to > kids, in this list. The reasoning is exposed notably here: > B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th > International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, > SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. > > <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > > > > The arguments presented in SANE04 are invalid. Not only invalid, but > spurious. Anything that you have ever claimed about comp (mechanism) > follows from the implementation of the UD in arithmetic. Since this is pure > platonism -- the assumption of arithmetical realism -- it is vanquished > with the falsity of platonism. > Ahah... thank you for your proof... Your argument is ==> "I say so". So physicalism is true, thank you for your enlightenment... If I had knew it was so easy to prove by just asserting it with balls... > > > > Ask if you want more detailed version. > > Now, I can also reverse the charge. If you believe in both materialism and > mechanism, which I have shown to be inconsistent when taken together, then > provide the counter-example: a physicalist theory of mind in which we can > say yes doctor, and which does not violate Church’s thesis. > > > I do not have to provide an alternative theory in order to prove your > theory wrong. Maxwell's theory of electomagnetism was known to be wrong > long before any viable alternative theory was constructed. > > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
