"Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over
time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had
become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had
started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible [any
longer] to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from
religion."
*Epistemological anarchism*
>From Wikipedia
@philipthrift
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:04:04 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I think one could be most on the mark by calling this "how bad money
> chases out good money." I joined this list last fall, and in the last
> couple of months it seems to have fallen over to various humbugs promoting
> nonsense. these threads of late have degenerated into pure rubbish, bad
> thinking chasing out good thinking.
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:46:37 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> I changed the title of this thread, I don't even know what the old one
>> means.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > *the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog,
>>> continuous process. *It would make a difference if all the decimals
>>> plays a role in consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> Even if you ignore the fact that it has been experimentally proven that
>> Bell's Inequality is violated and you claim there if a difference between
>> one Hydrogen atom and another, that is to say somewhere along that infinite
>> sequence of digits there is a difference, what you say makes no sense. The
>> atoms in my brain HAVE been replaced and yet I know for a FACT I have
>> survived; I *don't* know for a fact that the same is true for you but I
>> think it's reasonable to assume it is. So even if there is something analog
>> going on inside an atom, if we're talking about consciousness and
>> survival it's irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>> *>Of course, Darwin theory of evolution would become inconsistent, but
>>> logically, we cannot exclude the possibility*
>>>
>>
>> If a mathematical statement, even a well formed grammatically correct
>> one, contradicts a well established observation then it would be logical to
>> conclude the statement does not correspond with reality; after all every
>> language can write fiction as well as nonfiction. The fiction could be fun
>> to read and the very best might even have some sort of vague poetic
>> relationship to a truth, but there is not a literal correspondence to
>> reality.
>>
>> >> Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on
>>>> inside of it when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say
>>>> when one analog process gets replaced by another analog process, I
>>>> *STILL* survive.
>>>
>>>
>>> *> That is the mechanist assumption. You can truncate the infinite
>>> decimal expansion in the analog process running a brain.*
>>>
>>
>> It's not an assumption it's a *OBSERVATION*! Atoms in my brain have been
>> replaced many many times and yet my consciousness has continued. My only
>> *ASSUMPTION* is that you are like me and are also conscious.
>>
>> >> So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the Hydrogen
>>>> atom's business not mine, it has nothing to do with me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Assuming that you substitution level is above the truncation of the
>>> decimals used in the atom. But a non computationalist can assert that his
>>> consciousness requires all decimals. *
>>>
>>
>> Then the non computationalist must logically conclude that he is not
>> conscious. I thought solipsists were bad but at least they thought they
>> were conscious even if nobody else was, but your non computationalist
>> doesn't even think he is conscious. How a non conscious person is able to
>> think of anything I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
>>
>>
>>> >>> In which theory?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> >> In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then
>>>> I have observed X.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *>You cannot observe a philosophical assumption. *
>>>
>>
>> You can observe that a philosophical assumption is dead wrong, such as
>> the philosophical assumption that an infinite string of digits in an analog
>> process is always needed to continue consciousness.
>>
>>
>>> >> Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I have
>>>> direct experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant
>>>> operations.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> > *Yes, and that is good for you,** but* [...]
>>>
>>
>> But nothing! It's good enough for me to say yes to the doctor and it's
>> good enough for me to say yes to being frozen. And if your experience has
>> been similar to mine, if your consciousness has also continued despite your
>> many brain transplant operations, and if you are a true fan of logic, then
>> you must conclude it's good enough for you too.
>>
>>> *> Personal experience is not available when doing science,*
>>>
>>
>> True, and that is exactly why no consciousness theory ever devised is
>> scientific, and none every will be. But theories about how intelligence
>> works are most certainly scientific.
>>
>> >> It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to
>>>> the doctor (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my
>>>> actions to you or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it
>>>> is
>>>> the logical thing to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> > *Personally, perhaps. Not sure about the guy above, though.*
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about the other guy either, he might be a zombie for all I
>> know, everybody except me might be, all I know for certain is I'm not. The
>> other guy is going to have to make his own decision, I can't help him,
>> nobody can.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24ee370b-afd9-495e-b203-7c1118d5d717%40googlegroups.com.
