Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2013-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Dec 2012, at 00:22, Roger Clough wrote:



Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

1. That God exists or does not exist.

2. That I exist or do not exist.

3. That computers can be conscious or not.


4. That there is a primary physical reality or not.

You forget the main one which need to be understood to swallow the  
consequence of computationalism.


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.



Re: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-30 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Jason Resch 

Yes, that I am reading this proves to me that I am conscious,
but not to you, which is what I mean by proof.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/30/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-29, 17:05:08
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove





On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:


Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

1. That God exists or does not exist.

2. That I exist or do not exist.



Proof that you exist:


If you are reading this you exist. ?.E.D.


Or at least it is proof that your thought exists. ?t is not clear to me how you 
define I.


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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Dec 2012, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2012 4:56 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be   
wrote:



It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.


Assuming you can prove consciousness is related to those physical  
movements.

OK.

It goes like this:

1. Assume consciousness is caused by movement in the brain.
2. Assume that the brain movement is computable.
3. Then consciousness is computable.
(4. But if consciousness is computable, then the physical world must
be a product of consciousness rather than the other way around.)
But 4 doesn't follow.  In fact 1 already assumes consciousness is a  
product of physics; so 4 would be a contradiction.



Not really. 1 might assume that consciousness is caused by movement in  
the brain, in virtue of the fact that those movements (whatever they  
truly are) emulate a computation. In that case 4 does follow (although  
this is not entirely obvious).


Bruno





Brent


--
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.



Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Dec 2012, at 20:37, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb

How do you know-- truly know-- that other
people are like yourself ? What proof can you offer ?


proving something makes sense only in a theory, but we never prove a  
theory, we accept or not the evidences we can have.


Example:

We cannot prove that there is a physical universe, but we have tuns of  
evidence for that.
We cannot prove that there is a primitive physical universe, and we  
don't have evidence for that.
We cannot prove that we are conscious, but each of us have direct  
strong evidence for that.
We cannot prove that others are conscious, but we have evidences for  
that (making the theory humans are conscious more simple and elegant  
than solipsism).


The problem is that many media use the term proof easily in the two  
senses (logical, and inferential).


In a context like the mind-body problem, we have to use the two  
notions of proof, and so it is better to define proof by a  
sequence of formula deducible from some axioms/assumption/hypotheses  
(the theory), and to use inference for the bet on the assumptions,  
and its consequences, of the theory.


Proving is always theoretical. Inference is always a question of  
practice, but this does not mean that inference are not rational.


OK.







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-28, 13:29:55
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb

Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other  
people, they create a model in which other people are like  
themselves, they test the model and it works.  Problem solved -  
except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

--
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.



Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb

Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other  
people, they create a model in which other people are like  
themselves, they test the model and it works.  Problem solved -  
except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

Hi Brent,

This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an  
exact definition of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and  
'as if' definitions, we don't need exactness, so why is it treated  
as so important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise'  
books, I like The Liar the most. It is a nice change of pace from  
the ordinary treatments of logic and semantics and might help you  
understand this issue of 'as if'.


What makes you think I don't understand it?

Brent


Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where  
making with : Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the  
scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in  
which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it  
works.  Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the  
scientific method is. ... 




Stephen,

Frankly.

You cannot make a comment by saying read that book and you will  
understand. You must make your point explicit (and you can add: see  
that book which inspired my point). If not, you are just saying I  
know, you don't, and you stop to appear like the beginners/student  
you pretended to be. You appear as the one using argument per authority.


I would be Brent, I would be rather angry. You did this to many other  
people (including me) too, and it just doesn't work. Always make your  
point explicit, and refer to the book or paper if you have use some  
idea there, but gives the idea explicitly. If not, it is an  
authoritative argument of the form I know better than you. Only bad  
philosophers and fundamentalist do this.


In this precise case, I don't follow your point, and I don't see how  
Barwise's book can help. Nor do I see that book as a change from  
ordinary logic.


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.



Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
 proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
 simulated by a computer.


 Assuming you can prove consciousness is related to those physical movements.
 OK.

It goes like this:

1. Assume consciousness is caused by movement in the brain.
2. Assume that the brain movement is computable.
3. Then consciousness is computable.
(4. But if consciousness is computable, then the physical world must
be a product of consciousness rather than the other way around.)


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
 Stathis!!! (See after your remark)  -  John M


 On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
 proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
 simulated by a computer.

 

 Firstly: did we agree in a working identification of 'conscious'?

It's a mysterious thing you know you have when you have it. For the
purposes of this discussion that suffices.

 Secondly: is such 'conscious' phenomenon PHYSICAL?

It appears to be associated with or supervene on or be caused by
certain brain processes, since when those brain processes are present
consciousness (whatever it is) is also present, and when those brain
processes are not present consciousness is not present.

 Thirdly: do we know ALL (even restricted to 'physical(?)') movements of
 (all) the parts of the brain involved in mental actiity to state ALL their
 movements can be simulated by a computer?

No, we can't be sure. There may be non-computable physical processes
in the universe. But the evidence is that physics is computable.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stathis Papaioannou

You could do something like that.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-29, 07:56:07
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
 proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
 simulated by a computer.


 Assuming you can prove consciousness is related to those physical movements.
 OK.

It goes like this:

1. Assume consciousness is caused by movement in the brain.
2. Assume that the brain movement is computable.
3. Then consciousness is computable.
(4. But if consciousness is computable, then the physical world must
be a product of consciousness rather than the other way around.)


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Stephen P. King

On 12/29/2012 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other 
people, they create a model in which other people are like 
themselves, they test the model and it works.  Problem solved - 
except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

Hi Brent,

This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an 
exact definition of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and 
'as if' definitions, we don't need exactness, so why is it treated 
as so important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise' 
books, I like/The Liar/ 
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Displayversion=1.0service=UIhandle=euclid.bams/1183555025page=record 
the most. It is a nice change of pace from the ordinary treatments 
of logic and semantics and might help you understand this issue of 
'as if'.


What makes you think I don't understand it?

Brent


Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where 
making with : Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the 
scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in 
which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it 
works.  Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the 
scientific method is. ... 




Stephen,

Frankly.

You cannot make a comment by saying read that book and you will 
understand. You must make your point explicit (and you can add: see 
that book which inspired my point). If not, you are just saying I 
know, you don't, and you stop to appear like the beginners/student 
you pretended to be. You appear as the one using argument per authority.


I would be Brent, I would be rather angry. You did this to many other 
people (including me) too, and it just doesn't work. Always make your 
point explicit, and refer to the book or paper if you have use some 
idea there, but gives the idea explicitly. If not, it is an 
authoritative argument of the form I know better than you. Only bad 
philosophers and fundamentalist do this.


In this precise case, I don't follow your point, and I don't see how 
Barwise's book can help. Nor do I see that book as a change from 
ordinary logic.


Bruno



Dear Bruno,

Please re-read the content of the thread above.

I did exactly what you are asking, but I could have added another 
sentence to my initial remark: There is no need for a priori knowledge 
of 'scientific method'. So to restate my remark on Brent's comment 
above: We do not need exact definitions of models to reason, all we 
actually use is 'for all practical purpose' and 'as if' models to come 
to conclusions and thus we can see the same at work in solving the 
solipsism puzzle. Not having an explicit a priori synthetic knowledge of 
'the scientific method' in the sense of a memorized sequence of symbols 
such as ...systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the 
formulation, testing, and modification ofhypotheses 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. does not change a thing. It 
does, however, allow some people that are skilled in symbol manipulation 
to feel superior to others that are not so well endowed.


Brent seemed to take for granted this point in his remark to 
Roger's request and seemed to be merely casting aspersions. I then tried 
to cast Brent's remark in a different light to make a point. The 
reference to Barwise's book was, as you write, ..add: see that book 
which inspired my point.. Barwise, with his co-writers, does a 
magnificent job, IMHO, of illustrating how non-well foundedness and 
reflexivity allow for understanding and knowledge to occur in a world 
where entities are not omniscient. We are fallible, finite and 
definitely not all skilled in linguistics. Some of us have disabilities 
and can still think deeply about complicated ideas. ;-)



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King

Although I may have criticized you, I think you are very wise
in your remarks about reason (Bruno Also). Thanks.  

Reasoning is probably more frequently conducted by analogy than 
we care to admit.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/29/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-12-29, 10:38:18 
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove 


On 12/29/2012 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 



On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote: 


On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: 

On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:  
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: 

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:  
Hi meekerdb  

Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove 
the solipsism puzzle ? 


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they 
create a model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model 
and it works.  Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the 
scientific method is. 

Brent 

Hi Brent, 

This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an exact definition 
of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and 'as if' definitions, we don't 
need exactness, so why is it treated as so important? I invite you to check out 
any of Jon Barwise' books, I like The Liar the most. It is a nice change of 
pace from the ordinary treatments of logic and semantics and might help you 
understand this issue of 'as if'. 


What makes you think I don't understand it? 

Brent 


Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where making with 
: Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the scientific method: they 
observe other people, they create a model in which other people are like 
themselves, they test the model and it works.  Problem solved - except for 
people who don't know what the scientific method is. ...  




Stephen, 


Frankly. 


You cannot make a comment by saying read that book and you will understand. 
You must make your point explicit (and you can add: see that book which 
inspired my point). If not, you are just saying I know, you don't, and you 
stop to appear like the beginners/student you pretended to be. You appear as 
the one using argument per authority. 


I would be Brent, I would be rather angry. You did this to many other people 
(including me) too, and it just doesn't work. Always make your point explicit, 
and refer to the book or paper if you have use some idea there, but gives the 
idea explicitly. If not, it is an authoritative argument of the form I know 
better than you. Only bad philosophers and fundamentalist do this. 


In this precise case, I don't follow your point, and I don't see how Barwise's 
book can help. Nor do I see that book as a change from ordinary logic. 


Bruno 




Dear Bruno, 

Please re-read the content of the thread above. 

I did exactly what you are asking, but I could have added another sentence 
to my initial remark: There is no need for a priori knowledge of 'scientific 
method'. So to restate my remark on Brent's comment above: We do not need 
exact definitions of models to reason, all we actually use is 'for all 
practical purpose' and 'as if' models to come to conclusions and thus we can 
see the same at work in solving the solipsism puzzle. Not having an explicit a 
priori synthetic knowledge of 'the scientific method' in the sense of a 
memorized sequence of symbols such as ...systematic observation, measurement, 
and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. 
does not change a thing. It does, however, allow some people that are skilled 
in symbol manipulation to feel superior to others that are not so well endowed. 
 

Brent seemed to take for granted this point in his remark to Roger's 
request and seemed to be merely casting aspersions. I then tried to cast 
Brent's remark in a different light to make a point. The reference to Barwise's 
book was, as you write, ..add: see that book which inspired my point.. 
Barwise, with his co-writers, does a magnificent job, IMHO, of illustrating how 
non-well foundedness and reflexivity allow for understanding and knowledge to 
occur in a world where entities are not omniscient. We are fallible, finite and 
definitely not all skilled in linguistics. Some of us have disabilities and can 
still think deeply about complicated ideas. ;-) 



--  
Onward! 

Stephen

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
 1. That God exists or does not exist.


If God exists then His existence should be obvious to a blind man in a fog
bank, but it is not and the only reason that could be is that God has
engineered things in such a way that we can not find a proof. Being
omnipotent God certainly has the ability to fool us just as we have the
ability to tease a puppy, but to me it would seem to be a very very odd
thing for Him to do and indicative of a sadistic personality; some would
say there is evidence for this in the Old Testament where Jehovah is the
most unpleasant character in all of fiction. On the other hand it's
childishly easy to understand why a human being, like a priest, would push
the idea that God is deliberately preventing us from proving He exists.


  2. That I exist or do not exist.


I don't need to prove I exist to myself because I have something better,
direct experience; and even if I had such a proof it would not convince
you, if you don't think I exist then you wouldn't think the proof I handed
you existed either.


  3. That computers can be conscious or not.


There is a fourth thing that I cannot prove or disprove, Roger Clough is
conscious.

  John K Clark

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread meekerdb

On 12/29/2012 5:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com  wrote:

Stathis!!! (See after your remark)  -  John M


On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com
wrote:


It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.



Firstly: did we agree in a working identification of 'conscious'?

It's a mysterious thing you know you have when you have it. For the
purposes of this discussion that suffices.


 Secondly: is such 'conscious' phenomenon PHYSICAL?

It appears to be associated with or supervene on or be caused by
certain brain processes, since when those brain processes are present
consciousness (whatever it is) is also present, and when those brain
processes are not present consciousness is not present.


 Thirdly: do we know ALL (even restricted to 'physical(?)') movements of
(all) the parts of the brain involved in mental actiity to state ALL their
movements can be simulated by a computer?

No, we can't be sure. There may be non-computable physical processes
in the universe. But the evidence is that physics is computable.


Of course since we invent physical theories to explain and predict, it behooves us to 
invent computable ones.  What is not computed we push off to 'boundary conditions' or 
'chance'.


Brent

--
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-29 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:


 Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

 1. That God exists or does not exist.

 2. That I exist or do not exist.


Proof that you exist:

If you are reading this you exist.  Q.E.D.

Or at least it is proof that your thought exists.  It is not clear to me
how you define I.

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.



Re: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb 

Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-27, 20:11:51
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


On 12/27/2012 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote

This is a silly game. There are different kinds and standards of proof. 
Mathematical 
theorems are proven by following defined rules of inference from given axioms. 
Legal 
proof is by 'preponderance of the evidence' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. 
Science 
doesn't even to pretend to 'prove' things, although it can prove some theories 
are false 
in the 'beyond reasonable doubt' sense.

 Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

 1. That God exists or does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by God. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent 
God of 
Christianity does not exist because his definition is incoherent and also the 
evidence is 
against him beyond a reasonable doubt. But if he not omnibenevolent, like the 
Deist god, 
those disproofs don't apply


 2. That I exist or do not exist.

If you didn't exist you couldn't ask for a proof.


 3. That computers can be conscious or not.

Just like other scientific questions it is beyond a reasonable doubt that most 
computers 
are not, but if computers exhibit suffciently intelligent behavior their 
consciousness 
will be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Brent

 It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
 proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
 simulated by a computer.



-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread meekerdb

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a 
model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it works.  
Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

--
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Dec 2012, at 01:38, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:


Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

1. That God exists or does not exist.

2. That I exist or do not exist.

3. That computers can be conscious or not.


It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.


Assuming you can prove consciousness is related to those physical  
movements. OK.


Bruno






--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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.



Re: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb 

How do you know-- truly know-- that other 
people are like yourself ? What proof can you offer ?


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-28, 13:29:55
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
Hi meekerdb 

Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they 
create a model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model 
and it works.  Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the 
scientific method is.

Brent

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread John Mikes
Stathis!!! (See after your remark)  -  John M


On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:


 It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
 proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
 simulated by a computer.



 Firstly: did we agree in a working identification of 'conscious'?

Secondly: is such 'conscious' phenomenon PHYSICAL?
Thirdly: do we know ALL (even restricted to 'physical(?)') movements of
(all) the parts of the brain involved in mental actiity to state ALL their
movements can be simulated by a computer?


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread John Mikes
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stathis!!! (See after your remark)  -  John M


 On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
 stath...@gmail.comwrote:


 It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
 proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
 simulated by a computer.

 

 Firstly: did we agree in a working identification of 'conscious'?

 Secondly: is such 'conscious' phenomenon PHYSICAL?
 Thirdly: do we know ALL (even restricted to 'physical(?)') movements
 of (all) the parts of the brain involved in mental actiity to state ALL
 their movements can be simulated by a computer?
   JM


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other 
people, they create a model in which other people are like themselves, 
they test the model and it works.  Problem solved - except for people 
who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

Hi Brent,

This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an exact 
definition of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and 'as if' 
definitions, we don't need exactness, so why is it treated as so 
important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise' books, I 
like/The Liar/ 
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Displayversion=1.0service=UIhandle=euclid.bams/1183555025page=record 
the most. It is a nice change of pace from the ordinary treatments of 
logic and semantics and might help you understand this issue of 'as if'.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread meekerdb

On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a 
model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it works.  
Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

Hi Brent,

This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an exact definition of this 
or that, we operate with FAPP models and 'as if' definitions, we don't need exactness, 
so why is it treated as so important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise' 
books, I like/The Liar/ 
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Displayversion=1.0service=UIhandle=euclid.bams/1183555025page=record 
the most. It is a nice change of pace from the ordinary treatments of logic and 
semantics and might help you understand this issue of 'as if'.


What makes you think I don't understand it?

Brent

--
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other 
people, they create a model in which other people are like 
themselves, they test the model and it works.  Problem solved - 
except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.


Brent

Hi Brent,

This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an exact 
definition of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and 'as if' 
definitions, we don't need exactness, so why is it treated as so 
important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise' books, I 
like/The Liar/ 
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Displayversion=1.0service=UIhandle=euclid.bams/1183555025page=record 
the most. It is a nice change of pace from the ordinary treatments of 
logic and semantics and might help you understand this issue of 'as if'.


What makes you think I don't understand it?

Brent


Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where 
making with : Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the 
scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in 
which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it 
works.  Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the 
scientific method is. ... 


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-27 Thread Roger Clough
Hi LK Personal 

Right.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/27/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: LK Personal 
Receiver: Roger Clough 
Time: 2012-12-27, 00:46:11
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


The second one empirically proven, if I talk about myself. But I can't
prove that the other guys exists or not.

--

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

 1. That God exists or does not exist.

 2. That I exist or do not exist.

 3. That computers can be conscious or not.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/26/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

 1. That God exists or does not exist.

 2. That I exist or do not exist.

 3. That computers can be conscious or not.

It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

2012-12-27 Thread meekerdb

On 12/27/2012 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net  wrote


This is  a silly game.  There are different kinds and standards of proof.  Mathematical 
theorems are proven by following defined rules of inference from given axioms.  Legal 
proof is by 'preponderance of the evidence' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Science 
doesn't even to pretend to 'prove' things, although it can prove some theories are false 
in the 'beyond reasonable doubt' sense.



Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

1. That God exists or does not exist.


Depends on what you mean by God.  The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of 
Christianity does not exist because his definition is incoherent and also the evidence is 
against him beyond a reasonable doubt.  But if he not omnibenevolent, like the Deist god, 
those disproofs don't apply




2. That I exist or do not exist.


If you didn't exist you couldn't ask for a proof.



3. That computers can be conscious or not.


Just like other scientific questions it is beyond a reasonable doubt that most computers 
are not, but if computers exhibit suffciently intelligent behavior their consciousness 
will be established beyond a reasonable doubt.


Brent


It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.




--
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.