Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

> That's what I thought he said.  But I see no reason to suppose a UD is > running, much less running without physics.  We don't know of any > computation that occurs immaterially. All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus doesn't count itself. You ultimately have to have a con

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > Hi, > > > > You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are feeling > it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of the cranial > central nervous system are doing things. This includes (1

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 08 Jul 2011, at 01:59, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: One that happens to be incompatible with theory that our minds are computer programs. Can you explain that? It seems to be Bruno's central claim, but so far as I can see he only tries

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

We always look away and out as it were... our assertions are a "outlook', we are always looking away from ourselves out or towards something else up and away or beneath and below the question is: has an outlook? what has a figure or story of "the way things are"? How is the perceiving instrume

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Dear Bruno, Can you imagine any way to test whether a higher intelligence is monitoring the UD and occasionally modifying it? marty a. - Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" To: Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:09 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 08 Jul 2011, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2011 4:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: One that happens to be incompatible with theory that our minds are computer programs. Can you explain that? It seems to be Bruno's central claim

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

> Ultimately physics is just  set of well defined rules (algorithms) and > matter and energy is just information. How do you exactly distinguish "matter" and "energy"... what do you on one hand consider to be "matter" and on the other consider to be "energy. and how are both just information?

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

In defense of Bruno: it makes perfect sense to state that physics is not "the first principles of all being." It makes perfect sense to not assume that some materialistic reductionism will not provide one with the first principles in other words, physics is not the fundamental science that gro

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Indeed... we may have made a mistake in our historical movement towards a total rejection of metaphysical speculation in favor of the at hand... we may have acted prematurely and out of too much impatience and yearning for absolutes. I think metaphysical speculation is coming back into the picture

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > > > Ultimately physics is just set of well defined rules (algorithms) and > > matter and energy is just information. > > How do you exactly distinguish "matter" and "energy"... what do you on > one hand consider to be "matter" an

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/8/2011 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is > running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any > computation that occurs immaterially. All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus does

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Hi Marty, That cannot happen because the UD is by necessity all inclusive. To be able to modify it there must exist extensions of the UD that are not being run in the UD but could be run in the UD. Since the UD is running all possible strings there are no alternatives that one can chose fr

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

> > First let me ask you, how do you define matter? > matter seems to generally mean the analytical divisibility/conundrum of what is ordinarily observed in an "external"/"gross" and interconnected sense. It seems to generally be the analysis of a) nature... as in its basic meaning of "to be born"

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/8/2011 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is > running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any > computation that occurs immaterially. All computation occurs materially

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/8/2011 2:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/8/2011 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is > running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any > computation that occurs imma

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

yeah, who knows what the fundamental nature of all things is. it could shock and surprise the hell out of us but for some reason I feel optimistic now that it isn't totally out of reach. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constanti

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 06.07.2011 21:36 meekerdb said the following: On 7/6/2011 12:22 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.07.2011 05:14 Constantine Pseudonymous said the following: Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter ... If talk about consciousness, then I guess the next quote from Erwin Schrödi

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Another good Schrodinger quote: "Scientific theories serve to facilitate the survey of our observations and experimental findings. Every scientist knows how difficult it is to remember a moderately extended group of facts, before at least some primitive theoretical picture about them has been shap

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 06.07.2011 21:50 B Soroud said the following: actually the famous physicist famously does play mystic. very incoherently too. are you trying to advance argument by authority i.e. "famous physicist believes in classical metaphysics therefore there must be something to it"? Well, my question

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 08 Jul 2011, at 03:39, B Soroud wrote: Bruno, you are an animal... True. According to Aristotle, I am a rational animal. What Aristotle did not see is that the more an animal is rational, the more it can become irrational and even self-destructing. "So that you can in principle s

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 08 Jul 2011, at 14:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any computation that occurs immaterially. All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus doesn'

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 2:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The usual analogy is that your mind is your software, and your brain is the main operating system. It is obviously Turing universal (once you know the definition and think a little bit), and the comp assumption is that it is not more than Turing unive

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno, you are charismatic, but I refuse to be mesmerized by your fantastical charms. good luck! > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno = the will to freedom... . all his thought can be reduced to -> the will to freedom. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group,

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Conscious is an informal term, so it depends how you want to use it. I think of consciousness as the top level meta-awareness of a hierarchy of levels which might be called awareness, perception, sensation, and detection, where another person's idea of consciousness would equate all of those terms.

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

> You assumptions are not enough clear so I never know if you talk of what is > or of what seems to be. I'm trying for 'what seems to be what is', since what is isn't knowable and what seems to be doesn't matter if it doesn't reflect what is. > I limit the mystery to the numbers through the notio

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism. But in my eye… the fairer judgment is that some form of idealistic metaphysics is in fact situated a step above physicalism in proba

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/8/2011 6:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Conscious is an informal term, so it depends how you want to use it. I think of consciousness as the top level meta-awareness of a hierarchy of levels which might be called awareness, perception, sensation, and detection, where another person's idea of c

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism. But in my eye… the fairer judgment is that some form of idealistic metaphysics

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > >> it makes so much sense. >> >> the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any >> idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism. >> But in my e

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

I'm not saying forget psychics... I'm just saying perhaps we need something more and additional approaches... On Friday, July 8, 2011, Rex Allen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > > it makes so much sense.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed... I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics That's where my thoughts currently at. On Friday, July 8, 2011, B Soroud wrote: > I'm not saying f

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 8:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 8:57 PM, B Soroud wrote: I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed... I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics That's where my thoughts currently at. That's what a lo

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Indeed, why? Any talk of 'artificial circuits' might risk the patient saying 'No' to the doctor. I want real, digital circuits. Meat circuits are fine, though there might be something better. I mean, if something better than 'skin' comes along, I'll swap my skin for that. Probably need the brain

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Down the bottom if you dare there be dragons... :-) -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf of Jason Resch Sent: Sat 7/9/2011 1:23 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

That's what a lot of philosophers have said. I say, "Have at it!" Let me know what you come up with. In theory one could formulate a rationalist system but that would of course be ultimately unsatisfactory... The theoretical level is just a means to an end and never an end in itself, and if

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 10:55 PM, B Soroud wrote: That's what a lot of philosophers have said. I say, "Have at it!" Let me know what you come up with. In theory one could formulate a rationalist system but that would of course be ultimately unsatisfactory... The theoretical level is just a means t

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Science deriving a idealistic metaphysic from experience? On Friday, July 8, 2011, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 10:55 PM, B Soroud wrote: > > That's what a lot of philosophers have said.  I say, "Have at it!"  Let me > know what you come up with. > > In theory one could formulate a rationalist

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 12:02 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 8:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: >>> >>> it makes so much sense. >>> >>> the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the s

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

"...the only that could possibly matter in this case would be one derived from experience and is intrinsically "realizable" through a certain methodology." You didn't say anything about idealistic. "Derived from experience" and "intrinsically realizable" sounds like the scientific method to

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 11:35 PM, Rex Allen wrote: In other words: What do we make of the fact that these predictions were > successful (or not)? What does this mean with respect to our beliefs about > what kinds of things exist? > > The things we take to exist are the elements of our successful models.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > ** > > Down the bottom if you dare there be dragons... :-) > > > -Original Message- > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf of Jason Resch > Sent: Sat 7/9/2011 1:23 AM > To: everyt