On 28 Sep 2013, at 10:17, LizR wrote:
On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
>
> Bruno, if you have something new to say about this "proof" of
yours then
> say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and
hundreds of
> posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the
first 3
> steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the
first 3
> steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be
ridiculous.
>
> John K Clark
>
John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to
summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first
three steps.
I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR
(on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever
remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall
several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just
missed it. I'm sceptical of the "hundreds of posts" claim, though.
For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the
intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that
will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull
it all
into a comprehensible document.
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he
would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that
later when I finish it.
Bruno, I think you would be interested in this (if you haven't
already read it)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf
I am working my way through it slowly, and I just came upon this
delightful statement:
Thus, the idea that we can “escape all that philosophical crazy-
talk” by declaring that the
human mind is a computer program running on the hardware of the
brain, and that’s all there
is to it, strikes me as ironically backwards. Yes, we can say that,
and we might even be right.
But far from bypassing all philosophical perplexities, such a move
lands in a swamp of them!
Good remark. It is my main "meta-point". Comp makes possible to
formulate philosophical theological questions. But materialists indeed
use comp to push the question under the rug, and that might explain
why such work makes them nervous (so much to ignore it completely, or
defame, etc.). But Scott is still unaware of the FPI, the reversal,
the logical coming back of Plato and Plotinus, etc. He does not really
push the logic far enough.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
