Re: Re: science only works with half a brain
Hi meekerdb What exists physically has extension. That would be the phenomenol world. What exist as non-extensive (nonphysical) mental representations of the real world components are abstractions or idea entities in what is called Platonia Usually when we say that something exists we mean that it physically exists. The abstract entities in Platonia are made to seem like the physical objects they represent, and to seem to interact as they do, by the All. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 22:46:04 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 9/15/2012 7:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/15/2012 8:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2012, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: I contend that universality is the independence of computations to any particular machine but there must be at least one physical system that can implement a given computation for that computation to be knowable. This is just a accessibility question, in the Kripke sense of accessible worlds. Stephen, Could you provide a definition of what you mean by 'physical system'? Do you think it is possible, even in theory, for entities to distinguish whether they are in a physical system or a mathematical one? If so, what difference would they test to make that distinction? I am philosophically pretty well convinced by this argument. But there is still a logical problem, pointed by Peter Jones (1Z) on this list. Peter believes that comp makes sense only for primitively material machine, period. So he would answer to you that the mathematical machine is just not conscious, and that the distinction you ask is the difference between being conscious (and material) and being non conscious at all (and immaterial). I don't see any way to reply to this which does not bring the movie graph, the 323 principles, and that kind of stuff into account. But of course I can understand that the idea that arithmetic is full of immaterial philosophical zombies is rather weird, notably because they have also endless discussion on zombie, and that arithmetic contains P. Jones counterpart defending in exactly his way, that *he* is material, but Peter does not care as they are zombie and are not conscious, in his theory. In Peter's ontology, with which I have considerable empathy, they simply don't exist. Exist is what distinguishes material things from Platonia's abstractions - of course that doesn't play so well on something called the *EVERYTHING-LIST*. :-) Brent, Under what theory do you (or Peter) operate under to decide whether or not an abstraction in platonia exists? It's not arbitrary. None of them exist. That's what 'abstract' means. Brent It seems arbitrary and rather biased to confer this property only to those abstractions that happen to be nearest to us. Why should this additional property, namely existence, make any difference regarding which structures in platonia can have the property of conscious? It seems like this would lead to abstract objects that are only abstractly conscious and concrete objects which have the full-fledged concrete consciousness. After all, we say that 2 is even, not that it is abstractly even. If some program in platonia is conscious, is it abstractly conscious or just conscious? I think our existence in this universe makes the conclusion clear. In other branch of the wave function, or in other physical universes predicted by string theory, our universe exists only as an abstraction, yet our relative abstraction (to some entities) does not makes us into zombies. Why should there be no symmetry in this regard? How can our abstractions be zombies, while their abstractions are conscious? Jason -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Re: science only works with half a brain
Hi Stephen P. King http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ Descartes believed in only TWO kinds of substance: material body, which is defined by extension, and mental substance, which is defined by thought, which, in this context, is more or less equivalent to consciousness. snip For Spinoza, there is only ONE substance, the existence of which is demonstrated by a version of the ontological argument, which is thought of as being both God and Nature. snip Leibniz was not satisfied by this conception of divine substance, at least in part because it confines God to what actually exists. For Leibniz, God contains within himself all possibilities, not just the actual world: this latter is just that maximal set of possibilities that he has best reason to actualize. Leibniz acknowledges created SUBSTANCES, though they are very intimately dependent on God. In the Discourse on Metaphysics, (Section 14), he says: it is clear that created SUBSTANCES depend on God, who conserves them and indeed who produces them continuously by a kind of emanation, just as we produce our thoughts. (1998: 66) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 12:26:18 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 9/16/2012 8:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mereology seems to be something like Spinoza's metaphysics, that there is just one stuff in the universe and that stuff is God. So there is just one material. Hi Roger, Yes. Each of these philosophers focused on different things, but they all seemed to agree on the idea of a fundamental substance. This is the idea that Bruno denotes as primitive matter. On analysis of the concept it can be understood that this substance is nothing more than a empty bearer of properties. I think that existence itself, the necessarily possible, is sufficient to bundle properties together. Leibniz is completely diffferent. Every substance is not only different, it keeps changing, and changing more than its shape, and is a reflection of the whole universe. I suspect that Leibniz saw Becoming as fundamental (the Heraclitus view) and thus considered all properties as the result of some process, some kind of change. His problem is that he neglected to examine in detail the fact that we cannot assume a change without having a way to measure its incrementation. Perhaps he merely assumes, with Newton, that God's metronome, clocked all change equally. Modern incarnations of this idea are evident in Universe as Cellular automata theories and those fail for the same reason as L's idea. We can repair and rehabilitate these idea by a careful consideration of what Special and General Relativity can tell us. The changing and the different aspects means Leibniz is non-materialistic. And all of my comments could have been said by Leibniz. I disagree. He was not non-materialistic at all, he just put the burden of distinguishing matter from non-matter into the hands of God and its PEH. He avoided the hard problems. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. snip -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Re: science only works with half a brain
Hi Stephen P. King Mereology seems to be something like Spinoza's metaphysics, that there is just one stuff in the universe and that stuff is God. So there is just one material. Leibniz is completely diffferent. Every substance is not only different, it keeps changing, and changing more than its shape, and is a reflection of the whole universe. The changing and the different aspects means Leibniz is non-materialistic. And all of my comments could have been said by Leibniz. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 13:19:40 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain Hi Roger, You might think that you are being consistent with an anti-materialist stance, but consider how your wordings appear to use the exact mereological relations that are required for a materialist ontology. A mereology is a scheme of relations between wholes and parts, it is what defines the primitives that we build our set theories from. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/ I don't have time to show my claim at this time, I apologize. But if you have a moment, please take a look at the article and ponder the implications of it. On 9/15/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King My stance there is absolutely anti-materialist. Where do you see a materialistic statement ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 12:40:45 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 9/14/2012 8:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended) and so are quantitative. Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them. Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured directly, at least, nor dealt with by computers at least directly. I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split. Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it. Dear Roger, You are assuming an exclusively materialist stance or paradigm in your comment. Bruno's ideas are against the very idea. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, ROGER: Hi meekerdb First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so it only works with half a brain. MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one cutting the corpus callosum here. ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a subjective measure. Apples and oranges. You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that purposes. Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also. Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something is not scientific, you make it non scientific. So science can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. Logic has the same fatal problem. Only if you decide so. BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital transformations, and its dual the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is proof theory and model theory. Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There are many branches in logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as numbers or written words. Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no syntactical or finite counterparts. Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw it out. On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair, or ignorant of the UDA. Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical 3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to computations. BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists
Re: Re: science only works with half a brain
Hi Stephen P. King My stance there is absolutely anti-materialist. Where do you see a materialistic statement ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 12:40:45 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 9/14/2012 8:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended) and so are quantitative. Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them. Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured directly, at least, nor dealt with by computers at least directly. I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split. Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it. Dear Roger, You are assuming an exclusively materialist stance or paradigm in your comment. Bruno's ideas are against the very idea. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, ROGER: Hi meekerdb First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so it only works with half a brain. MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one cutting the corpus callosum here. ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a subjective measure. Apples and oranges. You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that purposes. Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also. Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something is not scientific, you make it non scientific. So science can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. Logic has the same fatal problem. Only if you decide so. BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital transformations, and its dual the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is proof theory and model theory. Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There are many branches in logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as numbers or written words. Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no syntactical or finite counterparts. Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw it out. On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair, or ignorant of the UDA. Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical 3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to computations. BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually. ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values. morality, salvation, forgiveness. These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues. Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the scientific method. If not you would not even been arguing. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual oof faith and moral practice. OK. Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts, quantity, numbers, physical data. If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing factual claims, and stop proposing normatible behavior. Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond itself. Like in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology, protecting faith from blind faith, actually. BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the human question, nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense. Bruno ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do. No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are religious, despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the mind- body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for more information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates so well. As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible. Yes, like PI = 3. But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc. OK. Like
Re: Re: science only works with half a brain
Hi Bruno Marchal Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended) and so are quantitative. Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them. Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured directly, at least, nor dealt with by computers at least directly. I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split. Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27 Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, ROGER: Hi meekerdb First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so it only works with half a brain. MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one cutting the corpus callosum here. ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a subjective measure. Apples and oranges. You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that purposes. Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also. Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something is not scientific, you make it non scientific. So science can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. Logic has the same fatal problem. Only if you decide so. BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital transformations, and its dual the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is proof theory and model theory. Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There are many branches in logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as numbers or written words. Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no syntactical or finite counterparts. Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw it out. On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair, or ignorant of the UDA. Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical 3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to computations. BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually. ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values. morality, salvation, forgiveness. These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues. Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the scientific method. If not you would not even been arguing. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual oof faith and moral practice. OK. Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts, quantity, numbers, physical data. If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing factual claims, and stop proposing normatible behavior. Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond itself. Like in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology, protecting faith from blind faith, actually. BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the human question, nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense. Bruno ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do. No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are religious, despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the mind- body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for more information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates so well. As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible. Yes, like PI = 3. But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc. OK. Like electronics cannot explain the Deep Blue chess strategy. But computer science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains already why there is something like meaning, value, morality, salvation. Computer science deals with immaterial entity, developing discourse on many non material things, including knowledge, meaning, etc. As I said, you are the one defending a reductionist conception of machine, confusing them with nothing but their appearances. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo
Re: Re: science only works with half a brain
Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, ROGER: Hi meekerdb First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so it only works with half a brain. MEEKERDB: Bad decision. You are the one cutting the corpus callosum here. ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a subjective measure. Apples and oranges. Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. So science can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. Logic has the same fatal problem. BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital transformations, and its dual the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is proof theory and model theory. Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There are many branches in logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as numbers or written words. Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw it out. BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually. ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values. morality, salvation, forgiveness. These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual oof faith and moral practice. Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts, quantity, numbers, physical data. BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the human question, nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense. Bruno ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do. As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible. But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:47:05 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bah ' Faith, it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in conflict. The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the Church from saying heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused by sin,... The problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'. Brent To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. The son of the founder of the Bah ' Faith said, If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time. We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, ?cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Jason -- 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. -- 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
