Re: R: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit (an old quote)

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:26, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: "In all cases, Knowledge implies a combination of Thoughts and Things. Without this combination, it would not be Knowledge. Without Thoughts, there could be no connexion; without Things, there could be no reality. Thoughts and

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: . if physics can be seen as possible a simulation run by some alien civilization, then physics is certainly Turing emulable. Which is not the case. The alien can fail us only for a finite time.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Of course, like Bohm, you can assume that there are particles, and >> conspiratorial potential, but that looks like Ptolemeaus epicycles, and >> worst, they

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, like Bohm, you can assume that there are particles, and conspiratorial potential, but that looks like Ptolemeaus epicycles, and worst, they prevent the computationalist theory of consciousness to apply. Scientists don't do that. Only

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24/06/2016 3:58 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: But this would include many worlds besides this one with vastly different physics. Come Brent, the total beauty of computationalism is that there is only one physics (well, actually three, but that is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/23/2016 6:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If a GoL universe exists and contains a Turing machine executing the universal dovetailer, no conscious entities within the programs executed by the universal dovetailer could ever know their ultimate substrate happens to be a GoL universe.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as we know it >>> or it wouldn't be another physical universe as we know

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> what is clear cut is that the chain on "what caused that?" questions >> either comes to an end or it does not. > > > ​> ​ > Explanation and cause are conceptually different. > ​Not if you want an

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> you've got to give those symbols a meaning, otherwise you're ​just >> talking about squiggles. And by the way, "=" is just another squiggle. The >> way we get around this problem and the reason mathematics and

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:28, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/20/2016 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent. Then the axiom itself might be existent

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/20/2016 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist in elementary arithmetic. Which is not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 7:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of reductionism and explaination. "Is physics the most

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as we know it or >> it wouldn't be another physical universe as we know it. ​ >> > > ​> ​ > So according to you, does every physical universe has to have

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: The alternative,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/20/2016 6:26 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? Valid questions. As you see the answer is not so clear cut, ​But

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 22 Jun 2016, at 23:35, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point is mathematics is a language​ ​and​ ​physics isn't, physics just is. ​> ​I give an

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/20/2016 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent. Then the axiom itself might be existent in some other theories. Now in the case of

R: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit (an old quote)

"In all cases, Knowledge implies a combination of Thoughts and Things. Without this combination, it would not be Knowledge. Without Thoughts, there could be no connexion; without Things, there could be no reality. Thoughts and Things are so intimately combined in our Knowledge, that we do not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/20/2016 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist in elementary arithmetic. Which is not the same as to exist in the world. Indeed.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/22/2016 10:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/06/2016 3:14 am,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 20/06/2016

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/19/2016 7:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To ask for that explanation to also somehow encompass the experience itself is both incoherent, and an illegitimate use of the word 'explanation'." Of course.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Would you say other physical universes are possible having completely >> different physical laws and without atoms and molecules as we know them

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > Would you say other physical universes are possible having completely > different physical laws and without atoms and molecules as we know them in > our universe? > ​I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 John Mikes wrote: Would you care to tell how you define 'life'? > ​No, I would not care to do so..​ > or: 'intelligent behavior'? > ​No. John K Clark​ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point >>> is mathematics is a *language* >>> *​ *​ >>> and >>> ​ ​

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

> For every sentence about how intelligent behavior works there are a thousand > about how consciousness works because theorizing about consciousness is many > orders of magnitude easier than theorizing about intelligence due to the > fact that intelligence theories actually have to perform while

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

JKC wrote: -- Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same way consciousness needs intelligent behavior and

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point is >> mathematics is a *language* >> *​ *​ >> and >> ​ ​ >> physics isn't, physics just *is*. > > > ​> ​ > I give an example, with arithmetic.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21 Jun 2016, at 03:08, John Clark wrote: ​JKC Wrote:​ ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? John Mikes​ Wrote:​ ​ JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR? ​???​ ​> ​there may be innumerable lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns, is for explanations to form a "virtuous

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21 Jun 2016, at 18:29, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for explaining physics: ​Bruno wasn't​ ​the first to discover that,​ ​people have​ ​known for​ ​400 years​

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > ​> ​ > you inserted a "how laws of physics work" which I did not say. I said > "physics". > Your distinction between ​ how the laws of physics works and how physics works elude me. ​ > ​> ​ > Describing physics, and

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:26 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> You misread my point, everyone knows mathematics can *describe* physics, >> what I said was Bruno shows how mathematics can

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > You misread my point, everyone knows mathematics can *describe* physics, > what I said was Bruno shows how mathematics can *explain* physics. > Meaning, why the physical laws have the form they have, > ​Your

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > If mathematics was a language, there would not be any open problem in pure > mathematics. > ​ Sure there would be, nobody can give a description of anything ​in any language ​ if ​they don't know what the thing

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for explaining >> physics: >> > > ​ > Bruno wasn't > ​ ​ > the first to

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for explaining > physics: > ​ Bruno wasn't ​ ​ the first to discover that, ​ ​ people have ​ ​ known for ​ ​ 400 years ​ ​ that mathematics is the best language

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jun 2016, at 19:31, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of reductionism and explaination. "Is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21 Jun 2016, at 03:44, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:26 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? Valid questions. As you

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns, is for explanations to form a "virtuous circle" in which everything is explained in terms of

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:26 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? >>> >> >> Valid questions. As you see the answer is not so clear cut, >>

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? >> > > Valid questions. As you see the answer is not so clear cut, > ​But what is clear cut is that the chain on "what caused that?" questions either comes

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

> > > ​JKC Wrote:​ > > ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? > John Mikes > ​ Wrote:​ > > ​ > JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR? ​???​ > ​> ​ > there may be innumerable lower levels... we just don't have the brains to > think further. > ​It may not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Jason, I accept your response. For the sake of better following we might use the (" ... ") addition to our listings to show that there may be more than ONE John M On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > John, > > Comments in-line: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

John, Comments in-line: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM, John Mikes wrote: > JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR? there may be innumerable > lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think further. > > "???" is not necessarily one thing, but a stand in for

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking >> about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of >>

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR? there may be innumerable lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think further. Q: what is the T O P ? John M On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 Jason Resch

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jun 2016, at 06:09, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: Smolin's book with someone-or-other is possibly more useful: he rejects platonism and says that a better way is to seem mathematics as "evoked" --

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jun 2016, at 05:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 3:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: There is no hard problem . there is only confusion on the part of Chalmers and those who follow him. I think Massimo Pigliucci gets it right when

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 3:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: All these problem dissolve if you reject the notion of a platonic realm for arithmetic and accept physicalism. If you succeed in making me doubting

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking > about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of > reductionism and explaination. "Is physics the most fundamental science, or > can it

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To ask for that explanation to also somehow encompass the experience itself is both incoherent, and an illegitimate use of the word 'explanation'." Of

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ >> ​My hunch is the muon is not fundamental because it spontaneously breaks >> down into smaller parts, but the electron and neutrino and photon are. ​ >> > > ​> ​ > But combine an electron with a positron and both

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent. Then the axiom itself might be existent in some other theories. Now in the case of "rich" (Gödel-Löbian), in fact in the case of

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To ask for that explanation to also somehow encompass the experience itself is both incoherent, and an illegitimate use of the word 'explanation'." Of course. Everybody agree here, but that is not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist in elementary arithmetic. Which is not the same as to exist in the world. Indeed. Especially when the world is made by a God in six

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20/06/2016 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: Smolin's book with someone-or-other is possibly more useful: he rejects platonism and says that a better way is to seem mathematics as "evoked" -- i.e., it has properties independent of us, but we

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20/06/2016 3:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: There is no hard problem . there is only confusion on the part of Chalmers and those who follow him. I think Massimo Pigliucci gets it right when he asks "What hard problem?",

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20/06/2016 3:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: All these problem dissolve if you reject the notion of a platonic realm for arithmetic and accept physicalism. If you succeed in making me doubting that 2+2=4, I might doubt even more on Hphi = Ephi.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

g List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jun 19, 2016 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:18 AM, John Clark <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com;>johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:33 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List &l

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

we can't prove it then for all eternity we will > be spinning our wheels looking, unsuccessfully, for something deeper. We're > damned if we do and damned if we don't. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: John Clar

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To ask for that explanation to also somehow encompass the experience itself is both incoherent, and an illegitimate use of the word 'explanation'." Of course. Everybody agree here, but that is not what is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 19/06/2016 7:28 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/17/2016 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I haven't read Carroll's new book (and probably won't because I don't like his attempt to redefine science as a non-empirical endeavour. Dawid wrote a book on that, but I wasn't aware of Carroll signing on

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Chalmers' enunciation of the problem assumes a physical universe > (= making it primitive). That is why, well that's one reason why, you're so very very confused; the existence of the the physical universe does *not*

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent. Then the axiom itself might be existent in some other theories. Now in the case of "rich" (Gödel-Löbian), in fact in the case of all essentially undecidable theories, (like RA, PA,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/19/2016 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To ask for that explanation to also somehow encompass the experience itself is both incoherent, and an illegitimate use of the word 'explanation'." Of course. Everybody agree here, but that is not what is done by the philosopher of mind. We still

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist in elementary arithmetic. Which is not the same as to exist in the world. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 18 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/06/2016 3:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2016, at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/06/2016 5:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 12:19 am,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 17 Jun 2016, at 20:47, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​Evolution provides a perfectly comprehensible route to consciousness, ​> ​To the easy consciousness problem. You don't seem aware of the hard problem, like

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/17/2016 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I haven't read Carroll's new book (and probably won't because I don't like his attempt to redefine science as a non-empirical endeavour. Dawid wrote a book on that, but I wasn't aware of Carroll signing on to it. Citation? Brent -- You received

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​ > haven't read Carroll's new book (and probably won't because I don't like > his attempt to redefine science as a non-empirical endeavour. ​I don't think Carroll wants to attempt anything like that, but what

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 18/06/2016 10:50 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/17/2016 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/06/2016 3:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2016, at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/06/2016 5:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/17/2016 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/06/2016 3:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2016, at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/06/2016 5:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 12:19 am, Telmo

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 18/06/2016 3:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2016, at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/06/2016 5:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 12:19 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Evolution provides a perfectly comprehensible route to consciousness, > > > ​> ​ > To the easy consciousness problem. You don't seem aware of the hard > problem, like called it. ​The reason the hard problem

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/17/2016 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You know, all I say is that if you use evolution to explain consciousness, then you already use mechanism, but then, and that is what I show, you need to pursue the evolution idea up to the origin of the physical laws, I'd have to assume physical

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 16 Jun 2016, at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/06/2016 5:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 12:19 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett Assuming arithmetic does

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 16 Jun 2016, at 18:50, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/16/2016 12:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/15/2016 9:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes. The point of my crude simplification was to argue that, in the extreme,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/16/2016 12:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/15/2016 9:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes. The point of my crude simplification was to argue that, in the extreme, computationalism creates no more of a mystery about

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 16/06/2016 5:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 12:19 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett Assuming arithmetic does not even account for mind, much less account for

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/15/2016 9:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Yes. The point of my crude simplification was to argue that, in the >> extreme, computationalism creates no more of a mystery about >> consciousness than physicalism.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 15/06/2016 12:19 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett >> >>> Assuming arithmetic does not even account for mind, much less account for >>> matter. Saying that

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/15/2016 9:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes. The point of my crude simplification was to argue that, in the extreme, computationalism creates no more of a mystery about consciousness than physicalism. But does it make it any less? Brent -- You received this message because you are

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15 Jun 2016, at 18:25, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jun 2016, at 16:19, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Bruce, Brent, You are lucky I have not really the time to comment each line of your posts, so to sum up, I thinks you miss the point or some point. Brent made many valid replies to Bruce, though. So I will need to search what is going wrong, which is exactly the point you miss. I am

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Jun 2016, at 16:19, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >>> >>> On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15/06/2016 3:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 9:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That seems to be assuming a lot! Assuming that consciousness is a (type of) computation does not imply that non-arithmetical substrates exist, much less that pencil and paper exist. Knowing that something

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/14/2016 9:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Firstly, that assumes supervenience of consciousness on the brain -- something that is not part of the definition of consciousness. But one for which there is good evidence. Sure, but is that part of the definition of consciousness? I don't

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/14/2016 9:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 2:11 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 7:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 11:55 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 4:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 5:22 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15/06/2016 2:11 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 7:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 11:55 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 4:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 5:22 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let me explain shortly. First

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/14/2016 7:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 11:55 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 4:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 5:22 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let me explain shortly. First we start from consciousness, by

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15/06/2016 11:55 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 4:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 5:22 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let me explain shortly. First we start from consciousness, by (re)defining computationalism as the assumption that

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/14/2016 4:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2016 5:22 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let me explain shortly. First we start from consciousness, by (re)defining computationalism as the assumption that there is a level of description of myself

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15/06/2016 5:22 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let me explain shortly. First we start from consciousness, by (re)defining computationalism as the assumption that there is a level of description of myself such that my consciousness remains unchanged

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15/06/2016 12:19 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett Assuming arithmetic does not even account for mind, much less account for matter. Saying that consciousness is a computation is empty until one specifies precisely what form of computation. It might be

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/14/2016 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let me explain shortly. First we start from consciousness, by (re)defining computationalism as the assumption that there is a level of description of myself such that my consciousness remains unchanged through a functional substitution made at

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/14/2016 7:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 14 Jun 2016, at 16:19, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that

<    1   2   3   >