Re: Request to Bruno re modal logic

On 4/11/2017 9:21 AM, David Nyman wrote: Yet, if the current theory is the giving of the two axioms: A1 p -> (q -> p) A2 (p -> (q -> r) ) -> ((p -> q) -> (p -> r)) With the inference rules modus ponens, and some substitution rule, it will be rather difficult to fin

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/19/2017 3:56 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 19 April 2017 at 08:24, Bruno Marchal > wrote: John has never write one clear post refuting the step-3 which would make it possible to answer by one post. There is no need for this, as the answer is in the public

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/19/2017 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 Telmo Menezes >wrote: ​>> ​ Ah yes that mythical magical post that you've been talking about for years, the wonderful post where you logically refute all my points and

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/19/2017 6:42 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Apr 2017 12:57 a.m., "John Clark" > wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, David Nyman mailto:da...@davidnyman.com>>wrote: ​> ​ ​I've often wondered whether Hoyle's heuristic could be a way

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/20/2017 12:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That looks nice. So now, I ask to you, and to everybody a question, which is important, and still open although I do have some opinion/hint. You are in Helsinki, and you are scanned and annihilate as usual, and (3p)-duplicate in three exemplars: on

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/21/2017 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2017, at 22:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/20/2017 12:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That looks nice. So now, I ask to you, and to everybody a question, which is important, and still open although I do have some opinion/hint. You are in

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/21/2017 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But computations does not need matter, no more than the number 2 needs two bottles of milk to make sense. The number 2 needs two instances of SOMETHING to make sense. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that there is some mysterious substance (he finally called it a "soul") that is not copied in your thought experiment. What I claim is this: under physicalist assumptions, everything was cop

Re: What are atheists for?

So you're defining computationalism as "not everything reduces to matter...and it's processes and relations?" That's quite different from the idea that consciousness would survive substititution of different substrates for brains provided certain computations were preserved. Does the existenc

Re: What are atheists for?

Who whole debate is about which is lower and which an which higher. In my view logic is just rules for manipulating language that preserver an attribute which we denominate "t" and which we intend to map onto the correspondence meaning of "true". That's why different logics are invented when i

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/22/2017 7:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that there is some mysterious substance (he finally called it a "soul") t

Re: What are atheists for?

I don't think there's any question that non-physical things exist, like chess and insurance and computations. The question was whether the assumption that computations can instantiate a mind, i.e. the possibility of a conscious robot, entails a contradiction of something. The "something" havi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Apr 2017, at 21:20, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal >wrote: ​> ​ Physical computation needs matter, because a physical computation is a mathematical computation implemente

Re: R: Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: "Quentin Anciaux": How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's contrad

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion. A computati

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 1:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry Bru

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This world is 'objective' in the sense that there is intersubjective agreement about it. That happens in multi-user video games, and all the multi-user games are implemented by all universal numbers, with all players in arithmetic. The only problem

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Apr 2017, at 08:31, Brent Meeker wrote: I don't think there's any question that non-physical things exist, like chess and insurance and computations. The question was whether the assumption that computations can instantiate a mind

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) That event did NOT have a cause and thus was random and not computable. One of those two must be true for everything but I don't see how that second possibility could have much relevance if you're interested in the study of intelligent behavior. R

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think there's any question that non-physical things exist, like chess and insurance and computations. The question was

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 4:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This is your thought experiment. Is it significant that it's nomologically impossible? Two different places, even quite close together, will experience different cosmic ray bombardment, That is why I have used the virtual environment above: to g

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2017, at 06:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But computations does not need matter, no more than the number 2 needs two bottles of milk to make sense. The number 2 needs two instances of SOMETHING

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Telmo was a bit short. The full proof relies on the fact that the computations are realized in arithmetic, That's not a fact. It's Platonist metaphysics. and that a universal machine cannot use primary matter in a magical (non Turing emulable, an

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No contradiction has been demonstrated. You have to explain how your Matter select the computations on which you are conscious. But: "Consciousness is an 1p notion Computation is a 3p notion. So with computationalism, consciousness IS NOT a comp

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Sure, but the question is not about the need to have a physical brain to met people with physical brain, no one doubt that, but on how to explain such physical brain without just saying "God made it", or "Matter made it". No the problem, for comp

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And the conclusion is not a logical contradiction indeed, but then you are like the guy who would say that despite thermodynamics explains how a car move we keep the right to believe in invisible horses. But you say the car both moves and exists b

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We can detect physical worlds, but we can't detect *primary* physical worlds, nor can be detect if we dream or awake, nor if the dreams is due to a brain in vat, or a brain emulated by Robinson Arithmetic. You can't detect Robinson Arithmetic eith

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/24/2017 7:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:12:38PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This world is 'objective' in the sense that there is intersubjective agreement about it. That happens in multi-user video game

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 1:08 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 4/25/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting computati

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 2:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting com

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 2:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The epistemological contradiction comes from the fact that with mechanism + weak materialism, you get a material universe that cannot have any rôle related to your consciousness Then why does drinking tequila have such a big effect on my consciousn

Re: What are atheists for?

I was off line for several days because my youngest daughter was getting married Saturday and I was hosting relatives who flew in from far away. Brent On 4/25/2017 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno (I have to go, I see you wrote many posts, Brent. Hope you sleep well). -- You received thi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 6:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 at 5:58 am, John Clark > wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>>wrote: ​>> ​ ​Suppose just for ​ ​the sake ​of argumen

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Brent, I comment the last posts in one post. On 25 Apr 2017, at 07:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/23/2017 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2017, at 06:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 10:19 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 7:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 25/04/2017 7:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's you

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/26/2017 12:32 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 11:07 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/25/2017 1:08 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrot

Re: R: Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/26/2017 4:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Give us the meat of your arguments and I promise to read with an open mind. In my case, I am mostly interested in the first principles that allow you to claim that consciousness emerges from complex interactions between physical entities. I think thi

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 4/26/2017 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Apr 2017, at 00:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/25/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/26/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You can't invalidate an argument by invoking your own theory (which seems to assume that there is some world). Like Quentin said, when a world is assumed, it is only to get a reductio ad absurdum, in the computationalist theoretical frame. I apprec

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/26/2017 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Maybe I will just ask you this. 1) Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? 2) that knowable obeys the S4 axioms? S4 = [](A->B) -> ([]A -> []B) K []A->AT []A -> [][]A 4 Then incomple

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/27/2017 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a primary physical reality, you have to explain how it drives the arithmetical consciousness flux. But how could it do that? If it does it in a digitally simulable way, it cannot work (because that is done in arithmetic too) We've just

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/27/2017 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If I say "yes" to the doctor, I am simply accepting that if the brain is replaced by a completely equivalent device, then I will survive. This is a matter of understanding the physics -- not a theological matter. The problem is that we can show tha

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 4/27/2017 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Apr 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/26/2017 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Apr 2017, at 00:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/25/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/27/2017 9:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-04-27 18:17 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 4/27/2017 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a primary physical reality, you have to explain how it drives the arithmetical cons

Re: What are atheists for?

thought, therefore primary physics is otiose. But thought can't be a consequence of physics becausewell you just don't see how it could be. That's a bit quick. I've explained both the reversal and the incompatibility. Then either you don't respond or your response sugges

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/27/2017 10:18 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 Apr 2017 7:26 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/26/2017 12:32 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 11:07 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wro

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/27/2017 4:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If t is possible to make a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator then I think this means that a creative processes that runs in sub-exponential time, should demonstrate creativity whether it uses a cryptographically secure pseudorand

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/27/2017 11:46 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 27 Apr 2017 11:12 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Sure. Here's the last exchange: /Davic: As far as the contradiction is concerned, I think you've found it for yourself. Yo

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/28/2017 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2017, at 18:17, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/27/2017 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a primary physical reality, you have to explain how it drives the arithmetical consciousness flux. But how could it do that? If it does it in

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/28/2017 1:11 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I agree that once AI reaches human-level, we should treat it as a person and assume consciousness. I don't see how this dissolves the hard problem, though. Suppose such an AI exists now. What changes? Attention will turn from metaphysics to engineer

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 4/29/2017 12:16 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Apr 2017 2:33 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 29/04/2017 1:18 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2017, at 23:22, Brent Meeker wrote: The absurdity, if I've

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/30/2017 4:39 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 April 2017 at 09:22, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/25/2017 6:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 at 5:58 am, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/30/2017 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Physicalists talk about emergence from complex interactions of matter. I remain baffled and ask you the same question that I ask physicalists: what is the first principle from where consciousness arises? Truth. That cannot be a mathematical construct

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/30/2017 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am inclined to think that consciousness = existence. Perhaps it's such a simple and fundamental thing that it becomes almost impossible to talk about it. Consciousness is the 1p feeling that there is something real. I am not sure why consciousnes

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 4/30/2017 5:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/05/2017 1:57 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2017, at 03:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/04/2017 1:18 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2017, at 23:22, Brent Meeker wrote: The absurdity, if I've understood this, is that idea of phy

Re: What are atheists for?

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 it could be. Not at all. It cannot be because you

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/2/2017 1:09 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 7:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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 primar

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/2/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 9:57 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/2/2017 1:09 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 7:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

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 consequen

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 m

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" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/2/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 9:57 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

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" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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 intui

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 <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 5/3/2017 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 May 2017 11:18 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: O

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" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/3/2017 12:31 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 8:11 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

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 exi

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" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 3 mai 2017 11:23 PM, "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a écr

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/4/2017 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 17:44, Brent Meeker wrote: 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

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/4/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 23:46, Brent Meeker wrote: 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&qu

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/5/2017 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2017, at 22:35, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/4/2017 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 17:44, Brent Meeker wrote: 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

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/5/2017 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2017, at 22:52, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/4/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 23:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/3/2017 1:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: Depends on what you mean by comp. You seem to engage in

Shannon bound

Here's an exposition that may be relevant to whether you say yes to the doctor: https://bugsareeasy.wordpress.com/tag/shannons-counting-argument/ Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's scientific modesty. Hubris is assuming the world must satisfy our theories instead of the other way around. Yes, but here you add a metaphysical idea to prevent the testing of a widely believed theories. That is what creationist do with the

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think so. Everett uses only Mechanism. What exactly is "mechanism"? Is it not that mind supervenes on the brain. It is a bit ambiguus, but it is OK here, unless you mean supervene on the material consistution of the brain (in which case i

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Everett miss that his move forces him to derive the wave itself from the superposition in arithmetic, and that is the weakness, OK. Not OK. How does that "forces him to derive the wave itself from the superposition in arithmetic". What step in UDA

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are entailed by arithmetic and so should be independent of tequila. That doe

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 10:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, accor

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 9:48 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 10:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Kip Ingram wrote: The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will before seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of new information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of randomness, but rather the injection of /information/. A

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 6:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:59, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithm

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 10:13 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been reluctant to really addr

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/8/2017 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How could something non material produces something material? That's what we keep wondering about computationalism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/9/2017 10:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/15/2017 3:38 AM, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking a bit about physical supervenience in the computationalist context and have come to the conclusion that I don't really understand it. So let's consider CT + YD. YD means accepting the replacement of all or part of my brain with a dig

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/15/2017 7:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: We had extended arguments starting from "Why isn't the-rock-that-computes everything conscious?" I think your analysis above needs to be extended to cover that. Y

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/17/2017 2:35 AM, David Nyman wrote: The problem comes only if you attempt to "reverse interpret" these transformations, in the computationalist framework,​ *as computation per se* and hence, by assumption, as having a supervenience relation with consciousness. This then introduces an amb

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/17/2017 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly. I might try to add some possible mathematical precision, but I need to think a bit on this. Later. Up to now, the B of Bp & p is interpreted by its computational rendering, but "B" is really provability, and not computation. Up to here, that

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/17/2017 5:08 AM, David Nyman wrote: As a (very) rough and partial analogy, if I am on deck, and you are observing me from aloft, I can grasp that you are in a position to command an entire domain of such personally "unprovable" facts about me, despite my not being in a position​ to acc

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/17/2017 2:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: To the extent that it ought to be possible for any program to represent any other program by a suitable time-based transformation applied by an external observer, then yes. I think there's a subtlety here. If we're speaking about *physica

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/18/2017 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 May 2017, at 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/17/2017 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly. I might try to add some possible mathematical precision, but I need to think a bit on this. Later. Up to now, the B of Bp & p is interprete

Re: ​Movie argument

On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List >wrote: ​> ​ So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the universe, or is physics the top dog from the 1st split second?

Re: ​Movie argument

On 5/19/2017 5:30 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 19 May 2017 at 21:00, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.c

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >