Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017, at 07:28, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and arguments that do not necessarily inters

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017, at 04:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and arguments that do not necessarily intersect at many points. I will try and answer some of y

Re: What are atheists for?

Much thanks Brent! I will read it asap :) Best, Bruno On 10 May 2017, at 01:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/9/2017 7:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that t

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 8:09 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 10/05/2017 3:28 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: The computations underlying the conscious moment have, then, to also compute the physics that renders the memories veridicia

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10/05/2017 3:28 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: The computations underlying the conscious moment have, then, to also compute the physics that renders the memories veridicial -- but that involves memories

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 6:45 a.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: I'm not so concerned about the measure being non-zero. I'm sure fans of "everything" will just appeal to self-selection: the anthropic principle applied to the UD. It seems to me that that is just an appeal

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 7:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 10/05/2017 3:38 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 5:51 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:40:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I find Barbou

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10/05/2017 3:38 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 5:51 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:40:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I find Barbour's idea of time capsules q

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 6:45 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/9/2017 10:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/9/2017 10:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 5:51 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:40:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I find Barbour's idea of time capsules quite helpful here. Each time > capsule is a self-contained conscious moment. There is no progres

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and arguments that do not necessarily intersect at many points. I will try and answer some of your

Re: What are atheists for?

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:40:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I find Barbour's idea of time capsules quite helpful here. Each time capsule is a self-contained conscious moment. There is no progression necessarily involved, so the compu

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and arguments that do not necessarily intersect at many points. I will try and answer some of your more direct questions. Why do I take the view t

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 9:40 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that th

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 8:36 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 4:36 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wr

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent".

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 4:36 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon h

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You refer to "internally consistent computations" a

Re: What are atheists for?

ent: Mon, May 8, 2017 12:44 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: > On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: > Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been > reluctant to really address t

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 07:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying physics with re

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 01:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Something lie the speed

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 01:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the conservation of energy in ther

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You refer to "internally consistent computations" and "consistent and hence intelligible '

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 4:36 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, Dav

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 00:58, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:42:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think they need to halt. They need only to go through our local state. A priori, the halting computations might have a null measure among all computations, so that the glo

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 20:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/8/2017 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How could something non material produces something material? That's what we keep wondering about computationalism. On the contrary, with computationalism, that never happen. Something non material

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 15:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but the measure function (which we don't have) mus

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is > a coher

Re: What are atheists for?

I have no good answer, only that your Platonic stuff somehow generates material. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Mon, May 8, 2017 6:51 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 08 May 2017, at 06:50, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: What

Re: What are atheists for?

Pity then Bruce, We humans could use the company and maybe the advice. -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list Sent: Mon, May 8, 2017 1:01 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 9 mai 2017 01:17, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: > >> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying physics with

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 8:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the conservation of energy in thermodynamics and entropy, why not take Boltzmann a b

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You refer to "internally consistent computations" and "consistent and hence intelligible 'personal histories'." But what is the measure of su

Re: What are atheists for?

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:42:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I don't think they need to halt. They need only to go through our > local state. A priori, the halting computations might have a null > measure among all computations, so that the global "physical" > measure might be determined

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/8/2017 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How could something non material produces something material? That's what we keep wondering about computationalism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is > a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless laws. Until you > have something like that, you cannot define consisten

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but the >> measure function (which we don'

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but the measure function (which we don't have) must re

Re: What are atheists for?

Everybody knows that drinking tequila and orange juice are the same in terms of qualia. Same as drinking rocks. Most people say things like: "this tequila or this orange juice is very possibly consistent and particularly full of Plotinus' unnameable truth upon looking inside the box today." On

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/05/2017 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is indepe

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 07:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been reluctant to really

Re: What are atheists for?

s. -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list Sent: Sun, May 7, 2017 11:53 pm Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017

Re: What are atheists for?

: Re: What are atheists for? On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: > On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: > Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been > reluctant to really address the question of physical superv

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: But that's what I mean when I say Bruno's theory has no pred

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 19:14, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 22:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/7/2017 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 22:32, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/7/2017 6:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is inde

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: >> >>> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, Davi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless laws. Until you have something like that, you cannot define consistent continuations. But I'm afraid that's implied by a

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: >> >>> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, Davi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nym

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: >> >> On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, Da

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8 May 2017 7:26 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" < meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 5/6/2017

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: > > On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" < > meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" < meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: But that's what I mean when I say Bruno

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8 May 2017 5:44 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: > On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: > Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been > reluctant to really address the question of physical superven

Re: What are atheists for?

On 7/05/2017 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious though

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 10:13 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been reluctant to really addr

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 2:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been reluctant to really address the question of physical supervenience in h

Re: What are atheists for?

aws. -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list Sent: Sun, May 7, 2017 11:53 pm Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: What are atheists for?

: Mon, May 8, 2017 12:44 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: > On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: > Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been > reluctant to really address the q

Re: What are atheists for?

pervasive physical laws. -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list Sent: Sun, May 7, 2017 11:53 pm Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: > On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: > Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been > reluctant to really address the question of physical supervenience in > his work. It has to be such consciousness

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: But that's what I mean when I say Bruno's theory has no pre

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly w

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:59, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example.

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/7/2017 6:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious tho

Re: What are atheists for?

On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Exactly why

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 06:02, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 12:08:10PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: That's what I was afraid of. Your theory successfully predicts it because it predicts "everything", including people drink tequila and don't get drunk. This thread reminds me of

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is inde

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 21:59, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscio

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 21:59, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscio

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are entailed by arithmetic

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 21:06, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Everett miss that his move forces him to derive the wave itself from the superposition in arithmetic, and that is the weakness, OK. Not OK. How does that "forces him to derive the wave itself from t

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 18:06, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think so. Everett uses only Mechanism. What exactly is "mechanism"? Is it not that mind supervenes on the brain. It is a bit ambiguus, but it is OK here, unless you mean supervene on the

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 18:06, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's scientific modesty. Hubris is assuming the world must satisfy our theories instead of the other way around. Yes, but here you add a metaphysical idea to prevent the testing of a widely belie

Re: What are atheists for?

On 06 May 2017, at 11:21, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2017, at 15:21, Telmo Menezes wrote: I think that mechanism gives the most of what we can hope for an explanation of what consciousness is. A number e can refer to itself and dev

Re: What are atheists for?

On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 12:08:10PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > That's what I was afraid of. Your theory successfully predicts it > because it predicts "everything", including people drink tequila and > don't get drunk. > This thread reminds

Re: What are atheists for?

On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Exactly why

Re: What are atheists for?

On 6 May 2017 10:50 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 9:48 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 10:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 12:08:10PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > That's what I was afraid of. Your theory successfully predicts it > because it predicts "everything", including people drink tequila and > don't get drunk. > This thread reminds me of a time when I when I was in year 10 in boardi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Mar

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 9:48 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/6/2017 10:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nym

Re: What are atheists for?

On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness,

Re: What are atheists for?

On 6 May 2017 9:48 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 10:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 3 mai 2

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 10:07 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin

Re: What are atheists for?

On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are entailed by arith

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of perception and physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are entailed by arithmetic and so should be independent of tequila. That doe

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Everett miss that his move forces him to derive the wave itself from the superposition in arithmetic, and that is the weakness, OK. Not OK. How does that "forces him to derive the wave itself from the superposition in arithmetic". What step in UDA

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4 May 2017 9:31 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 11:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 May 2017 10:47 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/3/2017 2:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 3 mai 2017 11:23 PM, "Brent Meeker" a écrit : On 5/3/2017 1:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This an

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think so. Everett uses only Mechanism. What exactly is "mechanism"? Is it not that mind supervenes on the brain. It is a bit ambiguus, but it is OK here, unless you mean supervene on the material consistution of the brain (in which case i

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/6/2017 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's scientific modesty. Hubris is assuming the world must satisfy our theories instead of the other way around. Yes, but here you add a metaphysical idea to prevent the testing of a widely believed theories. That is what creationist do with the

  1   2   3   4   5   >