Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-03 17:44 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 5/3/2017 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 May 2017, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Your answer seems to be that physics can be an illusion of digital > thought,

Re: What are atheists for?

On 03 May 2017, at 15:21, Telmo Menezes wrote: I think that mechanism gives the most of what we can hope for an explanation of what consciousness is. A number e can refer to itself and develop true belief about itself, including some guess in its relative consistency. I can understand

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2017, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your answer seems to be that physics can be an illusion of digital thought, therefore primary physics is otiose. But thought can't be a consequence of

Re: What are atheists for?

>>> I think that mechanism gives the most of what we can hope for an >>> explanation >>> of what consciousness is. >>> >>> A number e can refer to itself and develop true belief about itself, >>> including some guess in its relative consistency. >> >> >> I can understand self-referentiality, and

Re: What are atheists for?

On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/2/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 9:57 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:09 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 7:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker"

Re: What are atheists for?

On 3 May 2017 8:11 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 6:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Brent argues that AI will dissolve the hard question. I think that > people know intuitively that it will not. This is what pop-culture > works such as "Blade Runner" are about. >

Re: What are atheists for?

On 3 May 2017 9:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 8:11 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 6:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Brent argues that AI will dissolve the hard question. I think

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/2/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 9:57 p.m., "Brent Meeker"

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 12:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-03 21:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker >: On 5/3/2017 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker" >

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 1:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 9:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 8:11 p.m., "Brent Meeker"

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-03 21:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 5/3/2017 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 May 2017 9:57 p.m., "Brent Meeker"

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 3 mai 2017 22:27, "Brent Meeker" a écrit : On 5/3/2017 12:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-03 21:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 5/3/2017 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker"

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 3 mai 2017 11:23 PM, "Brent Meeker" a écrit : On 5/3/2017 1:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This an extreme reductionist view, i.e. if X is the fundamental ontology then only X exists. But that leads to nonsense: "If the standard model is fundamental ontology then

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 6:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Brent argues that AI will dissolve the hard question. I think that people know intuitively that it will not. This is what pop-culture works such as "Blade Runner" are about. People knew intuitively that the Earth was flat, God was needed to explain

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 8:11 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/3/2017 6:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Brent argues that AI will dissolve the hard question. I think that people know

Re: What are atheists for?

On 3 May 2017 9:27 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 12:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-03 21:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 5/3/2017 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker"

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 1:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This an extreme reductionist view, i.e. if X is the fundamental ontology then only X exists. But that leads to nonsense: "If the standard model is fundamental ontology then football doesn't exist." But it's true, football does not

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 1:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: Depends on what you mean by comp. You seem to engage in the same equivocation as Bruno. On the one hand it means saying "yes" to the doctor. On the other hand it means accepting his whole argument from that purportedly

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 3 mai 2017 11:23 PM, "Brent Meeker" > a écrit : On 5/3/2017 1:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This an extreme reductionist view, i.e. if X is the fundamental ontology

Re: What are atheists for?

On 02 May 2017, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your answer seems to be that physics can be an illusion of digital thought, therefore primary physics is otiose. But thought can't be a consequence of physics becausewell you just don't see how

Re: ​Movie argument

On 02 May 2017, at 23:17, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​We know (modulo Mechanism) that the experience will feel to be unique and asymmetrical when we are still in Helsinki. ​Modulo my ass, when I am in Helsinki I know I

Re: ​Movie argument

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > You just evade the question. I said, in Helsinki, I know (assuming > mechanism of course) > ​What does mechanism have to do with it?​ > ​> ​ > I will push on a button, and find myself alive in ONE city, living an