> On 12 Jul 2019, at 20:38, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 12:24, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:56:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I have been mocked for twenty years on this, by dogmatic materialist >> believers, until I proved the point (which has transformed the funny mockery >> in violent hate and defamation). >> >> Everyone would benefit of making the discussion emotionally neutral. Ask >> specific question on what you don’t understand, or what you find false. If >> you know a better (meta)definition of consciousness, maybe try to explain it >> here. >> >> >> >> I was thinking we (real) materialists are mocked today. :) > > Where? Maybe the naïve one, who still believe that the observable are > boolean, or something like that. But the paradigm today in metaphysics is > implicitly or explicitly physicalist/materialist. > > > >> >> Physicists (and even philosophers) have gone over to "It's all just >> information [number] processing, including consciousness" [SeanCarroll, Max >> Tegmark, etc.], thus becoming today's anti-materialists. > > > They have to, if Digital Mechanism is assumed, that has been proven. Without > Mechanism, it is unclear to me if we can really make sense of that primitive > matter concept. > > It is worst than in the Napoleon-Laplace dialog. I cannot say that I don’t > need the hypothesis of Matter, I have to say that any notion of Matter which > would be related to my consciousness leads to a contradiction (using very > small amount of Occam razor). > > Let us pursue the testing. To assume Matter (and what would that be?) is far > more premature. To invoke it in our explanation of Nature and Consciousness > seems to me quite premature. Ontological commitment are better to avoid when > doing science, especially so in metaphysics-theology. > > IF the three of S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*, described in my papers, depart from > nature, well, some oracle or matter might be at play, but that has not yet > been shown. An hard computationalist will only deduce that we are in a > malevolent simulation, like when seeing the pixels in a video game. > > Bruno > > > > > There are 3 things: > > Logica > Qualia > Matter
With Mechanism, those are explained in the phenomenology, so we do not need to assume them, except the minimal amont to define what is a digital machine, and that minimal amount is elementary combinator theory, or elementary arithmetic, etc. > > The first 2 are not real without the 3rd. That sentence is too vague. I can agree and disagree, depending of the theory used. > Without the 1st, the 3rd would be without order and would disintegrate. > Without the 2nd, there would be no conscious beings made of the 3rd. > > One can't untie the Trinity Knot of Being. I need a formula, and means to test it experimentally. Just to make some sense, and compare with the consequence of Mechanism. If you disagree with the proof of the incompatibility of Mechanism and (weak) Materialism, it would be nice to explain why. Bruno > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad50f7e3-7e92-4dda-8a28-02d2f8473031%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad50f7e3-7e92-4dda-8a28-02d2f8473031%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/85FEAEAC-8E71-4CE1-8FD4-A6F48C05F7EF%40ulb.ac.be.
