Bruno,
kind reply, I was not ironical. You
did not deny my position that ALL you do is coming from YOUR mind. However your
justification ends with a 'funny' word: FACTS. What would YOU accept as facts
and what would I? (Mind-body? our conscious feelings of a 'body(?) and all its
accessory jazz is how WE (1st pers?) interpret our response to impacts we
realize(d). Pain? Idea? Sport achievement? all from our solipsistic self
considered as 'facts' (I start to be impressed by Colin's solipsism).
So I am not impressed by (your) science based on
(your) facts. I listen to them an - maybe - accept (in toto or in
part).
The Goedel-infection of complex machines
(ourselves) was much simpler expressed by George (cannot prove that I am not
crazy).
>"So, machine which introspect themselves
sufficiently closely can not only guess the existence of something "bigger", but
the machine can study the mathematical structure of its ignorance
border."<
still does not show that 'it' comprehends the
'items' of such "BIGGER", only that 'it' accepts the existence of (something)
such. Even more: it can study its (incomprehending) ignorance.
*
UDA step 1:
do you really 'believe'(?!) that we, identified
as (complex) machines are really ONLY the PARTS of the BODY? you seem to be in
favor of the 'mind-body' idea (<G>) - where is the mind IN US? you replace
(yes doctor) the body-parts and the mind just goes with it? I use YOUR words
here, I would say 'mentality' or 'ideation' the part neurologists cannot give
account for. Or would you 'make' mentality a bodily organ, not flesh and blood,
but of ideational stuff? then 'mind' would merge into body and you are not in
favor of that. Anyway such an extended body-concept in my appreciation for
Gestalt would please me. Just like "brainS" is not the plural of "brain", the
goo. Facilitation of the hard problem.
Materialists cannot come up to such
solutions. They measure
mVs - mAmps. So what does (your) body
consist of? Or: what do you let go into the 'mind', what the YD does not
exchange?
Your 2nd par "*far* from being
solved" is not explained by a cloudy allowance that it surely can be
mathematically solved. I say similarly cloudily: no, it cannot. My
fact.
And I am not impressed by a reference to
'quantum-like rules', to refer to a simplified linear 1-track methodology in
understanding something that is complex.
Your 'results' (no matter how much I appreciate
them) are still within the comprehension of your thinking, not of a mathematical
structuring (Godel) that there is some 'BIG' which is above your
comprehension. (QED).
*
I find your reference to atheists irrelevant as far as I
am concerned. I simply do not find 'room' for 'supernatural' or any extraneous
intelligence that would 'create', 'rule', 'organize' or do any other 'godly'
activity over our (not understood) existence.
So: no 'theo' for me. (a- or not). People with similar ideas in earlier
times coined the 'pantheist' _expression_, but that. too, was a variant of the
religious formula.
I still stay with my 'scientific agnosticism': I dunno.
But I can criticize.
Best regards
John
----- Original Message -----
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
- Re: Barbour- Platonia in private! jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a t... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternati... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alter... Bruno Marchal
- SV: Barbour's mistake: An alter... Lennart Nilsson
- Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... Bruno Marchal
- SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... Lennart Nilsson
- Re: SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: ..to Bru... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platon... David Nyman
- Maudlin's argument George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's argument Bruno Marchal
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Bruno Marchal
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Russell Standish
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) David Nyman
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Brent Meeker