Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

2009-05-30 Thread Rex Allen
Why would someone's IQ rating be a recommendation of anything about them? Well, someone who's 8 feet tall is not necessarily going to be good at basketball, or even have the other abilities needed to excel at basketball, BUT I think it seems reasonable to think that it might be interesting to

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

2009-06-01 Thread Rex Allen
Good information, thanks! On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 May 2009, at 23:08, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone on this list ever heard of this?  A theory of reality formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: In COMP, the 'mechanism and language of dreams' is posited to be those elements of the number realm and its operators that are deemed necessary to instantiate a 'universal TM' (i.e. one that - assuming CT to be true - is

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-18 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am OK with all this. It has to be like this if we take the comp hyp So what are your thoughts on my question as to whether abstract concepts other than numbers also exist in a platonic sense? For example, the idea of

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-20 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, I intend to reply more directly to your post soon, as I think there's a lot to be said in response. But in the meantime: So I just finished reading David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality, and I'm curious what you (Brent, Bruno, and anyone else) make of the following passage at the end of

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-21 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, So my first draft addressed many of the points you made, but it that email got too big and sprawling I thought. So I've focused on what seems to me like the key passage from your post. If you think there was some other point that I should have addressed, let me know. So, key passage:

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-23 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: The way I look at it there is knowledge we gain from perception, including the inner perception of logical and mathematical facts. We make up theories that unify and explain these perceptions and which extend beyond

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-27 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: I think that's a misuse of ontology. When we discuss the atomic theory of matter the ontology is a set of elementary particles, including their couplings and dynamics. I think most of us are using ontology in

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-27 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, Another example of your somewhat non-standard definition 2 usage: First of all I think epistemology precedes ontology. We first get knowledge of some facts and then we create an ontology as part of a theory to explain these facts. On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Rex

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-30 Thread Rex Allen
Okay, I've reworked my views a bit based on the discussion thus far. It seems to me that the primary meaning of to exist is to be conscious. But what causes conscious experience? Well, I'm beginning to think that nothing causes it. Our conscious experience is fundamental, uncaused, and

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: So my point is simply: let's start from the understanding that to exist is just and only what it is to exist-for-oneself: the defining characteristic of existence is 'taking everything personally'. The standard put-down

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-31 Thread Rex Allen
A further thought: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Of course a computational narrative may turn out not to be the way to go, but I strongly suspect that we still await a revolution in - well not physics, but..what? being-science? (gawd) - that will

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-02 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Rex proposes something like: CONSCIOUSNESS = ? It is radical, and it is difficult to say if it explains anything. I suspect the goal could be personal enlightnment instead of a search in a communicable theory which

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-06 Thread Rex Allen
If computationalism is true, and computation is the source of conscious experience, then shouldn't we expect that what is ontologically real is the simplest possible universe that can develop and support physical systems that are Turing equivalent? Does our universe look like such a universe?

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-08 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer considerable advantage. If that's what the future held for me, then that's exactly what I would do. Otherwise, I wouldn't do that, since it wouldn't

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-09 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, BTW, this was intended as a (mostly) sincere response to your point. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-09 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Aug 2009, at 22:44, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: So physicalism in fact offers no advantage over just asserting that our conscious experience just exists. Why are my perceptions orderly and why are my predictions

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-10 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm conscious OF are complex and structured, my conscious experience of

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-10 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote What of course is striking about your proposals is that in reality nobody behaves as though they believe this sort of thing: which is not of course to say that this makes it uninteresting. You speak as if though we have

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-13 Thread Rex Allen
I owe Bruno and Brent a response also...it's in the works! David: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: The standard view of physics is that things are causally closed 'out there', and this seems to rule out that such causation can in any sense be

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience itself is uncaused and fundamental. This has no meaning for me. It is like saying don't ask. Hm. You don't at all see what I'm trying to say?

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: The living brain and the executing computer program both just represent the contents of my conscious experience, in the same way that a map represents the actual terrain. When you set fire to a map the land doesn't

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Rex Allen
Brent, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be a causal one. Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-15 Thread Rex Allen
Brent and 1Z (the twins...a dynamic duo of blunt skepticism): On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal explanations are not really explanations, because you can never trace the causal chain back to it's

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this: H. I didn't see anything in your post that seemed like an actual problem for my view. As I think my virtual-gas example illustrated, meaning is subjective, like

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/16 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this: H.  I didn't see anything in your post

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: There seems to be a lot switching back and forth between cause and meaning and explanation as though were interchangable. And even those have different modes, e.g. first cause, effective cause, proximate

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I exist could be, perhaps, tautological. But Reality? I don't think so. Certainly not from inside. What is reality, beyond our conscious experience of existence? The conclusion will be that consciousness, or anything

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Rex Allen
I'm afraid you are solipsist. Ha! Ouch! But it's not quite as simple as that. I don't deny that there MAY be something that causes consciousness, BUT if there is...this ultimately doesn't matter. In the final view, the conclusion is the same...consciousness experience just is what it is.

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Rex Allen
, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Here's what I think is the problem with all this: H.  I didn't see anything in your post that seemed like an actual problem for my view. As I think my virtual-gas example

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:50 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Recalling your interest in Chalmers: I was re-reading Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness recently, and I realised - I think for the first time - that his own double-aspect theory of information is effectively a

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: It seems as though we can comprehend 'mind' only in terms of some self-instantiating, self-interpreting context, in which meaning depends always on the self-relating logic of differentiation and interaction. Hence the

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: I sometimes have the feeling you're saying something interesting...and wishing I knew what it was. Brent To me, 60% of David's posts are intricately worded works of Ciceronian prose that eloquently make points of

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer considerable

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 11 Aug, 16:38, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: Standard physicalism, on the other hand, by banishing self-access from its fundamental notions of causal adequacy

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: If you can't see into the future, you are going to have to make your mind up in the present Assuming physicalism, my brain will make my mind up for me, Asssuming physcialism, your brain is you and not some external

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Either way, there is only the epiphenomenal experience of making my mind up...not the actuality of doing so. I'd say there was the epiphenomenal experience of making up your mind AND the actuality of doing so.  

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Where are you trying to get? to an immortal soul? a ghost-in-the-machine? What's wrong with my mind is what my brain does? Where I'm trying to get is that there is no explanation for our conscious experience. It

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Where are you trying to get?  to an immortal soul? a ghost-in-the-machine?  What's wrong with my mind is what my brain

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you make yourself small enough you can avoid responsibility for everything.        --- Daniel Dennett, in Elbow Room If determinism is

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Right.  And Dennett is choosing his words carefully, so as to advance his social re-engineering agenda.  He want's to keep the idea of responsibility for utilitarian reasons..it's hard to keep a society going without

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: SO, with that in mind...what were you implying when you added that quote?  What was your motivation?  What were you accusing me of? In short...why did you introduce that Dennett quote into this thread? Probably I should

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: In this case, I am not responsible (common usage) for the fortune or misfortune that has befallen those who I have stumbled into as a result of the universe's constant pushiness. I AM responsible

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Redefine?  You haven't defined it at all - you just assert examples and assert that they are common usage. Pshaw. You asked for an operational definition, and I gave you one. Perhaps you should reread my email. You

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: I think his exploration of the constraints on our actions in Freedom Evolves is pretty much on the money. So I can't comment on Freedom Evolves, as I haven't read it. But I have read some of his articles and seen him

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-03 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Dennett's main goal is not to show that determinism is compatible with free will (which it isn't), actually it is, although I don't find it very convincing Asking whether free will is compatible with determinism is like

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-03 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ I was aware of these facts. But a good SEP article nonetheless, thanks!

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and extensive literature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Dawkins

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible to fix it (since we built it in the first place).  However neither of these

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way - and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange). A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork Orange has a similar

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously nobody is pro-poverty, but I think framing the issue in terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes the debate away from systemic solutions towards an excessive focus on individuals. Or,

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But again, Dennett is mainly interested in pushing his Bright agenda...showing that Atheists are just like everybody else. Seems like you're mainly interested in picking a fight with Dennett.  I don't recall him

Re: Against Physics

2009-09-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Of course the easiest, and 100% effective way to reduce crime is to repeal laws.  About 1/3 of our prison population is there because of non-violent drug use crimes. Indeed, I'm on board with that. But, I don't see

Re: The seven step series (november 2009)

2009-11-10 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: That's why I say I take it as an ansatz - Let's consider all possible computations and see if we can pick out physics and the brain and consciousness from them. I would think that it's pretty much a given that out

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-03 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Science advances in small steps that often depend on technology.  I think the next 'hard' question that has some chance of being answered is, what information processes are necessary and sufficient  to produce

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2009, at 19:15, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Those thought experiences are not needed to understand that the physical reality and physical sensations emerge from numbers

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-04 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Science advances in small steps that often depend on technology.  I think the next 'hard' question that has some chance

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-05 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: What is your alternative to the everything universal acid?  That things just are the way they are (uniquely), and there's ultimately no explanation for that.  Right? Exactly so.  It's just happened

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-06 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: What is your alternative to the everything universal acid?  That things just are the way

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-06 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: You seem to be reading a lot into my post. Ha! Ya, once I got going I figured I'd just throw everything in there and see if any of it elicited any interesting feedback. I never said that consciousness is an

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-08 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a physicalist reality with no downwards causation, What defines upwards and downwards. Why would downwards causation make any difference

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-09 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Dec 2009, at 09:50, Rex Allen wrote: In such a reality, things just are what they are. If you find some explanations good and others bad, that's just the epiphenominal residue of more fundamental physical processes

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-13 Thread Rex Allen
But since practically anything can represent nearly anything else, it's ultimately all in the mind of the beholder. The representation must account for the observation. Hmmm? I'm not sure what you're saying here. How would the representation account for the observation? Do you mean that

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-13 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Dec 2009, at 20:51, Rex Allen wrote: We see evolution...but it only exists in our minds, as a tool for our understanding. It's not something that exists in the world. Again, taking the physicalist view. We see

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-13 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: I'm thinking of something similar to the symbol grounding problem: The Symbol Grounding Problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single individual travelling in the forward direction through time. How did

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: What caused it to exist? Who said it needs a cause? Why this reality as opposed to nothing? Given the principle of sufficient reason, wouldn't nothingness be the expected state of things

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind 'on' what): One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way? the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real existence' (are)

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working forward from first principles. That's because taking

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: Okay, an underlying objective reality causes the order in what we experience - but then what causes the order in this underlying objective reality? You haven't answered any questions...you've just

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: What caused it to exist? Who said

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: So ultimately, there is no reason you value the things you do...that's just the way things are. Suppose there was a reason - what would it be like? And why would it make any difference whether

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-18 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: So I'm just trying to understand my situation here. To me, my existence seems quite perplexing. An explanation is in order. But you never say what would count as an explanation - which makes me

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-21 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: The only rationale for adducing the additional existence of any 1-p experience in a 3-p world is the raw fact that we possess it (or seem to, according to some). We can't compute the existence of any 1-p experiential

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-22 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:50 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 February 2010 23:25, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: So we know 1-p directly, while we only infer the existence of 3-p. However, you seem to start from the assumption that 1-p is in the weaker subordinate

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-22 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: The only rationale for adducing the additional existence of any 1-p experience in a 3-p world is the raw fact that we

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-23 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:18 AM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 February 2010 05:45, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: The idea of a material world that exists fundamentally and uncaused while giving rise to conscious experience is no more coherent than the idea

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-23 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Feb 2010, at 06:45, Rex Allen wrote: It seems to me that there are two easy ways to get rid of the hard problem. 1)  Get rid of 1-p.  (A la Dennettian eliminative materialism) OR 2)  Get rid of 3-p

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-23 Thread Rex Allen
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: The idea of a material world that exists fundamentally and uncaused while giving rise to conscious experience is no more coherent than the idea that conscious experience exists fundamentally

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:17 AM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 February 2010 07:03, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: With this in mind, I'm not sure what you mean by two undeniably manifest perpectives. Only ONE seems undeniable to me, and that's 1-p. My proposal

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Rex and Members,        There is a very compelling body of work in logic that allows for circularity. Please take a look at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m06t7w0163945350/ and

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: Is hard determinism as bad an outcome as solipsism? If not, why not? I don't know about good or bad - but since you post on the internet I infer that you are not a solipist. Since posting

Re: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No representation is conscious. Nor any body (which are relative representations). Consciousness or knowledge, like truth, but unlike consistency, has no finite representation whatsoever. It is more the platonic and non

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-25 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 February 2010 14:46, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com wrote: However, I agree that the statement evolution has programmed us to think of ourselves as a single individual, etc is rather contentious as

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-26 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2010 16:41, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Could our universe *actually* produce such a being by applying our presumably deterministic laws to any set of initial conditions over any amount

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-27 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 February 2010 14:59, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: People can only have beliefs that supervene onto one of the physical configurations that it is possible for a human brain to take. What determines

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-27 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: Note that I am not arguing that this particular belief is an impossible belief. What I'm arguing is that evolution doesn't help you one way or the other in deciding...because evolution is just

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-27 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 February 2010 05:33, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that peoples' beliefs could not be other than what they actually are given initial conditions

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-28 Thread Rex Allen
Okay, I think maybe we're getting somewhere! On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 February 2010 17:38, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: People believe and do all sorts of crazy things, as I'm sure you know. The psychological capacity

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-28 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Feb 2010, at 07:33, Rex Allen wrote: What would the causal mechanism for natural selection be?  A selection field?  Selection particles?  Spooky selection at a distance??? No, it is (mainly) Sex. Selection

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-02-28 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: I think you have to narrow a concept of explanation; you seem to confine it to causal physical chain at the most fundamental level.  If someone asked you whether you expected a newly discovered animal species to be one

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-03-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Mar 2010, at 05:40, Rex Allen wrote: At most (!) one of those levels is what really exists - the other levels are just ways that we think about what really exists or ways that things *seem* to us. The point

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-03-03 Thread Rex Allen
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I may be absent for a period, for reason of sciatica. Best, Bruno No worries! I will be a bit delayed on my response anyway. All is well! Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: The 'no miracles' argument against scientific realism

2010-04-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 4/15/2010 8:01 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Let's assume that our best scientific theories tell us something true about the way the world *really* is, in an ontological sense. And further, for simplicity,

Re: The 'no miracles' argument against scientific realism

2010-04-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: What would make universes with honest initial conditions + causal laws more probable than deceptive ones? For every honest universe

Re: The 'no miracles' argument against scientific realism

2010-04-19 Thread Rex Allen
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Apr 2010, at 03:15, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: I agree in theory, though I still hold to my consciousness is fundamental and uncaused mantra! Would you agree that the distribution of prime numbers is uncaused.

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I think you've got the argument wrong. I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :) Carroll discusses this in his book From Eternity to Here From Eternity To Here, Pg. 182 (my comments follow the

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: This argument is not definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for consciousness it seems pretty good. Ha! As long as you assume there

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would necessarily start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to encode more than one or two bits at the Planck scale.  If one universe can

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Rex Allen
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: This argument is not definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of consciousness

  1   2   3   >