Re: Primary matter

> On 11 Jul 2018, at 14:02, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > Another long delay… Hi Telmo, No problem. That is why I prefer mail than phone, we can think before answering, or take some rest :) > >> I am not sure I commented your first paragraph, which might be a key for >> trying

Re: Primary matter

Hi Bruno, Another long delay... > I am not sure I commented your first paragraph, which might be a key for > trying to define what could be an explanation. What would be like a > satisfying explanation of consciousness, meaning, reality, etc. > > > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes wr

Re: Primary matter

> On 2 Jul 2018, at 00:04, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 7/1/2018 5:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 20:18, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/29/2018 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:43, Brent Mee

Re: Primary matter

On 7/1/2018 5:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Jun 2018, at 20:18, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 6/29/2018 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:43, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 6/27/2018 1:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: O

Re: Primary matter

gt;>>>> chemical explanation of life? >>>> Yes. There are some mysteries remaining, my favorite one is how the >>>> first self-replicators originated. But even there are several >>>> plausible ideas. >> >> It might be that this has to be

Re: Primary matter

ally a reexamination of the base assumptions is necessary. This leads to a crisis and parts of the edifice comes tumbling down. The quintessential example is classical physics and Einstein. And the stall comes from asking the wrong question: like where does the elan vitale reside  or how

Re: Primary matter

x27;s anything "normal" or "extra-normal" in science. There >>> is good science and better science; and they are measured by how >>> comprehensive, accurate, and predictive they are. >> Kuhn proposed the term "normal science" to mean the exploitation

Re: Primary matter

> On 27 Jun 2018, at 06:31, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/26/2018 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:37, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/25/2018 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent

Re: Primary matter

On 6/27/2018 1:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 27 June 2018 at 03:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to exp

Re: Primary matter

On 27 June 2018 at 03:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to explaining >>> anything

Re: Primary matter

On 6/26/2018 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:37, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 6/25/2018 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Primary matter

On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to explaining anything (e.g. we're living in the Matrix). The theories of M are certainly incompl

Re: Primary matter

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:37, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2018 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> This does not mean that a conscious ma

Re: Primary matter

Hi Telmo, I am not sure I commented your first paragraph, which might be a key for trying to define what could be an explanation. What would be like a satisfying explanation of consciousness, meaning, reality, etc. > On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > >>> I foll

Re: Primary matter

On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to explaining > anything (e.g. we're living in the Matrix). The theories of M are certainly > incomplete, but if there is empirical data i

Re: Primary matter

On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to explaining anything (e.g. we're living in the Matrix). The theories of M are certainly incomplete, but if there is empirical data inconsistent with those theories it just shows they have l

Re: Primary matter

On 6/25/2018 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If not, mechanism is refuted (or we are in a malevolent simulation, which is better to never assume, as this can again explains everything, like super determinism or epiphenomenalism (as you said at the relevant place to Brent). Does no one else s

Re: Primary matter

On 6/25/2018 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This does not mean that a conscious machine is necessarily more efficacious on all task, What is the added undecideable sent

Re: Primary matter

On 21 June 2018 at 22:52, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/21/2018 3:55 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2018 at 00:53, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/20/2018 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, >> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This

Re: Primary matter

ness, which has >> to be sacrificed if we want to keep matter in the ontology, but then I am >> still waiting for any non mechanist theory of consciousness (beyond the >> fairy tales). > > I agree that comp and materialism are incompatible, you convinced me a > long

Re: Primary matter

On 22 June 2018 at 13:31, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Hi Bruno, >> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel stuck in a loop. Perha

Re: Primary matter

> On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This does not mean that a conscious machine is necessarily more efficacious on all task, >>> What is the added undecideable sentence implied by consciousness? >> “I am conscious”. > >

Re: Primary matter

On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This does not mean that a conscious machine is necessarily more efficacious on all task, What is the added undecideable sentence implied by consciousness? “I am conscious”. What does that speed up?  Does the speed up from adding an undeciable sen

Re: Primary matter

> On 21 Jun 2018, at 12:55, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On 21 June 2018 at 00:53, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> On 6/20/2018 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bruno, >>> > I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves > me dissatisfied, but if I try to v

Re: Primary matter

> On 21 Jun 2018, at 06:44, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/11/2018 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Hi Telmo, >> >> >>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:53, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bruno, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting. >> >> No problem. From tomorrow (Tuesday) to Fri

Re: Primary matter

> On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > >>> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves >>> me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel >>> stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point. >> >> >> We might n

Re: Primary matter

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Who is more dogmatic about their world view, the MWI'ists or the CI'ers? > Which sounds more like a religion, "Everything exists, we just can't see > it." or "Shut up and calculate."? > > > "Nor can I ever sufficiently admire [Copernicus an

Re: Primary matter

On 6/21/2018 3:55 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 21 June 2018 at 00:53, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/20/2018 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel stuc

Re: Primary matter

On 21 June 2018 at 00:53, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/20/2018 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Hi Bruno, >> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel stuck in a loop. Perhaps th

Re: Primary matter

On 6/11/2018 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Telmo, On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:53, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting. No problem. From tomorrow (Tuesday) to Friday, I have many oral exams (+ a conference in Nivelles, a city nearby). So take your tim

Re: Primary matter

On 6/20/2018 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point. We might need to do some detour about wha

Re: Primary matter

Hi Bruno, >> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves >> me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel >> stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point. > > > We might need to do some detour about what it would mean to explain > consci

Re: Primary matter

Hi Telmo, > On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:53, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting. No problem. From tomorrow (Tuesday) to Friday, I have many oral exams (+ a conference in Nivelles, a city nearby). So take your time to comment and express the dissatisf

Re: Primary matter

Hi Bruno, Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting. > Ah! Let me try to answer.Keep in mind that I assume elementary arithmetic and > thus computations, etc. > (I am not sure I need YD here, but it can help). > > >> >> - Why does consciousness even exist? > > Consciousness is somehow the doub

Re: Primary matter

I have no idea what "theology of > science " means. That was a typo. I meant “…theology FROM science”. We cannot make that separation without making science, or a part of it, into a theology. That is why some people believes that “materialism” sides with science, where any serious

Re: Primary matter

ve no idea if that's true or not because I have no idea what "theology of science " means. Bruno, I don't believe you can write clearly in ANY language, except of course for Brunospeak, and only one person on the planet is fluent in Brunospeak. For example: *​"​your use of “

Re: Primary matter

more simple than any of those old text. I have learned greek to be able to compare different translation. Also, you seem to be not aware that your use of “primary matter”, that you call simply “matter” is not just theological, but is invalid from a scientist (in theology) point of view. Fund

Re: Green stars (was Primary matter)

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 6:22:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2018 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > The appearance of colour is as much psychological as anything. We > > would have evolved to perceive ambient light as white - doesn't matter > > whether there are clear skies, o

Re: Primary matter

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Here? Where? You said there were many improvements in theology between >> 500BC and 500AD and I asked for examples, and for the second time you were >> unable to provide a single one. ​ > > > ​>* ​* > *I provided them; already twi

Re: Primary matter

> On 8 Jun 2018, at 13:10, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/8/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You confuse religion with argument per authority, and tat will continue as >> long as theology does not come back to science, which put reason before >> texts, and is modest in never claiming

Re: Primary matter

On 6/8/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You confuse religion with argument per authority, and tat will continue as long as theology does not come back to science, which put reason before texts, and is modest in never claiming truth, but only means of testing ideas. No, you are confusing

Re: Primary matter

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:11, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2018 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 02:26, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/6/2018 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if >>>

Re: Primary matter

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 21:58, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2018 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> ee above, i.e. because it is necessary. Science may well determine when >>> and where and what relations there are. But not why. That's the >>> "engineering" solution to the hard problem o

Re: Primary matter

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 20:01, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​I meant: here are the improvements described, in the works of Pythagorus > to Damascus. > > ​Here? Where? You said there were many improvements in the

Re: Primary matter

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > One way of moving forward is that when you talk about the "Robust" > > universe case, you are effectively postulating Platonism of > > computations. > > ? > > I have used “robust” only for a physical universe. It is a phys

Re: Green stars (was Primary matter)

On 6/7/2018 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote: The appearance of colour is as much psychological as anything. We would have evolved to perceive ambient light as white - doesn't matter whether there are clear skies, or it is cloudy, the brain will adjust, given appropriate cues. Yeah, my wife i

Re: Green stars (was Primary matter)

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 10:05:34AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > *> hasn't the Sun been getting hotter, which would mean moving from yellow > > toward green rather than the other way. And it's still still more a yellow > > than green store.

Re: Primary matter

On 6/7/2018 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 7 Jun 2018, at 02:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/6/2018 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more effic

Re: Primary matter

On 6/7/2018 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ee above, i.e. because it is necessary. Science may well determine when and where and what relations there are. But not why. That's the "engineering" solution to the hard problem of consciousness for which I am often criticized. Because you limit

Re: Primary matter

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I meant: here are the improvements described, in the works of Pythagorus > to Damascus. > ​Here? Where? You said there were many improvements in theology between 500BC and 500AD and I asked for examples, and for the second time you wer

Re: Primary matter

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 03:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 5 Jun 2018, at 03:34, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> > wrote: >>> >>> The difference is perhaps most

Re: Primary matter

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 02:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/6/2018 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it >> let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more >> efficacious machine, with respec

Re: Primary matter

> On 6 Jun 2018, at 14:48, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>> Yes, but why are the "lights on" inside me? Why are we not mechanisms, >>> that do exactly what you describe, but without a first-person >>> experience of it? >> >> >> Ah, there's your problem. Science doesn't answer "why" questions. That

Re: Primary matter

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 01:46, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > ​>> ​ From -500 to +500, theology has progressed a lot. > > I​>> ​I'd like to see some examples of that. > > ​> ​Pythagorus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato,

FW: Primary matter

[Philip Benjamin] Primary matter? It has only physics? No chemistry? Without chemistry what use is it of? These questions apply to ALL matter, besides the question of aseity. Philip Benjamin -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Brent Meeker Sent

Green stars (was Primary matter)

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > *> hasn't the Sun been getting hotter, which would mean moving from yellow > toward green rather than the other way. And it's still still more a yellow > than green store. * There are intensely red stars and there are pale blue stars but t

Re: Primary matter

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 08:26:34PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > Interesting story.  But hasn't the Sun been getting hotter, which would mean > moving from yellow toward green rather than the other way.  And it's still > still more a yellow than green store. The peak of the sun's spectrum is about

Re: Primary matter

edited by Uriah Kriegel. > http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/uploads/1/4/4/4/14443634/russellian_monism.pdf > … #Panpsychism #Consciousness > http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/uploads/1/4/4/4/14443634/russellian_monism.pdf Hmm… The Tibetan have refuted this centuries ago. Mechanism ref

Re: Primary matter

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 23:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/5/2018 7:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> On 4 June 2018 at 23:48, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> I am very grateful for mother medicine, but >>> we should not pretend that its operativ

Re: Primary matter

y idea is > to combine Darwinism, Many-Worlds and Anthropic reasoning: what if > evolution works exactly as modern Biology describes it, but with a > probability of success that is incredibly low? Then the multiverse > could be a barren wasteland, with incredibly sporadic regions where > e

Re: Primary matter

Interesting story.  But hasn't the Sun been getting hotter, which would mean moving from yellow toward green rather than the other way.  And it's still still more a yellow than green store.  So why don't the red/blue pigmented plants out compete the green ones.  I think there must be more to it

Re: Primary matter

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 5 Jun 2018, at 03:34, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The difference is perhaps most easily captured in the use of the word "exists". If we say that there "exists" an integer between 2 and 4, then that could be called

Re: Primary matter

On 6/6/2018 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more efficacious machine, with respect to its most probable history. So, consciousness brings a self-s

Re: Primary matter

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:16:31PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/6/2018 8:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > But in the early days of life on this planet random > > > mutation and natural selection stumbled upon a key molecule in the > > > photosynthesis process, chlorophyll, that just hap

Re: Primary matter

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​>> ​ > * From -500 to +500, theology has progressed a lot.* > I > ​>> ​I > 'd like to see some examples of that. > *​> ​Pythagorus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, > Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, … Damascius. That des

Re: Primary matter

On 6/6/2018 8:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: But in the early days of life on this planet random mutation and natural selection stumbled upon a key molecule in the photosynthesis process, chlorophyll, that just happens to be green and it works OK, not perfectly but OK. In Evolution you don't have

Re: Primary matter

On 6/6/2018 5:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, but why are the "lights on" inside me? Why are we not mechanisms, that do exactly what you describe, but without a first-person experience of it? Ah, there's your problem. Science doesn't answer "why" questions. That's what I mean by people hav

Re: Primary matter

> On 4 Jun 2018, at 16:13, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On 3 June 2018 at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> On 6/3/2018 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> On 1 June 2018 at 22:37, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/1/2018 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Physical theori

Re: Primary matter

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 16:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On 4 June 2018 at 23:48, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> I am very grateful for mother medicine, but >> we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the >> fundamental questions. >

Re: Primary matter

; and platonism would help here. Yes. Note that I have already explained, but maybe you were not there, why I prefer the expression “arithmetical realism” better than arithmetical platonism, used by mathematicians. The reason is that I use Platonism in the sense of Plato, a loose and general sens

Re: Primary matter

On 6 June 2018 at 17:08, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> Science answers plenty of certain types of "why" >> questions: > > > It would be more accurate to say Science answers "how” questions; "why" > questions imply intent and intent

Re: Primary matter

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > *Science answers plenty of certain types of "why"​ ​questions:* > It would be more accurate to say Science answers "how” questions; "why" questions imply intent and intent needs somebody to have a intention and there may not be one.

Re: Primary matter

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 03:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >> >> You seem to confuse arithmetical realism, used in all branches of science, >> and Platonism (which is part of the consequence). To define mathematically >> what a computation is, we need a

Re: Primary matter

> On 4 Jun 2018, at 21:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2018 6:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> There is not one argument here. >> >> You seem to confuse arithmetical realism, used in all branches of science, >> and Platonism (which is part of the consequence). To define mathematica

Re: Primary matter

ell me, which unique person is Mr. YOU after Mr. You is no longer > unique? By the first person indeterminacy I cannot know, in Helsinki, which one I will feel to be. After, you must ask them the question personally, or read their diary. > > ​>> ​about what "pri

Re: Primary matter

>> Yes, but why are the "lights on" inside me? Why are we not mechanisms, >> that do exactly what you describe, but without a first-person >> experience of it? > > > Ah, there's your problem. Science doesn't answer "why" questions. That's > what I mean by people having an exaggerated idea of what

Re: Primary matter

On 6/5/2018 8:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 4 June 2018 at 20:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/4/2018 3:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Most scientists and scientifically-literate people I know assume that consciousness emerges from brain activity without ever really thinking about the ramificati

Re: Primary matter

On 6/5/2018 7:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: If I understand correctly, you define free-will as the ability to act independently from other people, biological instincts and so on. My problem is that free-will must be free from something. I can accept it as a relative concept -- my free-will in re

Re: Primary matter

On 6/5/2018 7:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 4 June 2018 at 23:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I am very grateful for mother medicine, but we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the fundamental questions. What fundamental question do y

Re: Primary matter

On 4 June 2018 at 20:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/4/2018 3:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Most scientists and scientifically-literate people I know assume that >> consciousness emerges from brain activity without ever really thinking >> about the ramifications of this hypothesis. I have h

Re: Primary matter

(without magic, but > like in the WM duplication), but it accelerates the self developing autonomy. > It provides … free-will, which is not much the ability to say “no” to the > authorities, be them parents, teacher, bishops, ayatollah, etc. I have had an idea for some time, and I will

Re: Primary matter

On 4 June 2018 at 23:48, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I am very grateful for mother medicine, but > we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the > fundamental questions. > > What fundamental question do you refer to? How to detect consc

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 4:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:48:01PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: It's a necessary feature of intelligence.  Intelligence requires "what-if" modeling of situations in order to foresee consequences. Even a the lower animal level this implies modeling on

Re: Primary matter

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > You seem to confuse arithmetical realism, used in all branches of science, > and Platonism (which is part of the consequence). To define mathematically > what a computation is, we need arithmetical realism. In SANE04, my definiti

Re: Primary matter

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You seem to confuse arithmetical realism, used in all branches of science, and Platonism (which is part of the consequence). To define mathematically what a computation is, we need arithmetical realism. In SANE04, my definition is redundant bec

Re: Primary matter

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >> ​>​ >> Free-will is NOT *often* described that way, I have but I've never heard >> ​ >> anyone else do so; > > > ​> ​ > I'm _sure_ you've heard me describe it that way. It's in my book. ​I'm glad to hear I'm not alone!​ > ​> ​ > My

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 4:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 01:12:57PM -0400, John Clark wrote: ​>* ​* *Free-will is often defined by an ability to do something randomly, * Free-will is NOT *often* described that way, I have but I've never heard anyone else do so; I'm _sure_ you'v

Re: Primary matter

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:48:01PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > It's a necessary feature of intelligence.  Intelligence requires "what-if" > modeling of situations in order to foresee consequences. Even a the lower > animal level this implies modeling oneself in the simulation. In higher, > soci

Re: Primary matter

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 01:12:57PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > > ​>* ​* > > *Free-will is often defined by an ability to do something randomly, * > > > Free-will is NOT *often* described that way, I have but I've never heard > anyone else do so; I'm _sure_ you've heard me describe it that way. It

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I am very grateful for mother medicine, but we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the fundamental questions. What fundamental question do you refer to? How to detect consciousness? How to produce consciousness? How to prove (in t

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 6:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is not one argument here. You seem to confuse arithmetical realism, used in all branches of science, and Platonism (which is part of the consequence). To define mathematically what a computation is, we need arithmetical realism. Science doe

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 3:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Most scientists and scientifically-literate people I know assume that consciousness emerges from brain activity without ever really thinking about the ramifications of this hypothesis. I have had this conversation several times, and I can usually tell

Re: Primary matter

e, which unique person is Mr. YOU after Mr. You is no longer unique? > ​>> ​ >> about what "primary matter” means; and that's why specialists in the >> study of matter, physicists, have never found the idea useful. > > > *​> ​Solving fundamental question is not necessary

Re: Primary matter

that you >>>>>> don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or >>>>>> silly. >>>>> >>>>> It's not that I "don't like" primary matter, it's that I think it's an >>>&g

Re: Primary matter

for all conscious people who are OK with the ideas that consciousness is, for them, true, non doubtable, immediate, non definable, and non provable. That can be used as a semi-axiomatic theory of consciousness, and it can be shown that all (Löbian) universal machine are confronted with, and can des

Re: Primary matter

ot the same as "doing stuff" and doing stuff is secondary because > stuff obviously can't do anything if stuff doesn't exist. I'm not saying this > is deep I'm just saying its true. And by the way, the number of times the > phrase "primary matter&qu

Re: Primary matter

On 3 June 2018 at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/3/2018 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 1 June 2018 at 22:37, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/1/2018 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Physical theories of the brain, based on extensive empirical research, > have >

Re: Primary matter

naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of >>>> nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you >>>> don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or >>>> silly. >>> >>> It's

Re: Primary matter

> On 1 Jun 2018, at 14:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:46, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:mar

Re: Primary matter

;> nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you >>>>>> don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or >>>>>> silly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not that I "

  1   2   >