No problem, Roger.
You are coherent: you seem to believe in substantial (primitive)
matter, and in non-comp.
Personally I am not sure about that. What I am pretty sure of, still,
is that we can't have both primitive matter and mechanism to be true
together.
Of course, as a logician, I will still debunk invalid argument against
comp, but this does not mean I believe that comp is true. I debunk
also invalid argument against non-comp.
As a scientist I am already glad to show that it is testable.
Bruno
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:59, Roger wrote:
How can there be a subjective universe ?
This question can be answered by the use of Leibniz's Monadology:
See http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm
for that. I have no idea why it is on a Marxist website, for it
aims to do away with materialism.
Monads seem to provide the only way to understand how there could be
a subjective universe,
for the entire universe is composed of monads (substances) and so
material bodies each have a monad
attached to them to guide them indirectly acccording to pre-
established harmony.
Indirectly, because all monads are blind and passive except for the
dominant monad of
the universe, which you might call Cosmic Mind (but i would call
God). And only monads of the
highest order have intelligence, while physical bodies just have
instructions misleadingly called
"perceptions" , as to where to go. Such Perceptions (which are
indirect, since a monad does not
have windows), for physical bodies are just guidance instructions,
and appetitions, which are its desires
(for life, to follow Goal-based causation, and for dead matter to
follow the usual
laws of physics (called efficient causation).
Dead bodies do not have intelligence, which is necessary foir
consciousness, so without consciousness,
the subjectivity of a stone for example, would be analogous to that
of a blind deaf man
(guided by an angel).
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-14, 05:38:31
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
Hi William,
On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe
seems rather obvious.
I don't think anything is obvious here.
What do you mean by a subjective universe? Do you mean that we are
dreaming? What is your theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?
Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient
I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with
omniscience, even restricted to number relations. Computational
universality entails the impossibility of omniscience.
solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations.
?
Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.
I agree with this. I would say that information is really context
selection.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
