On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do use >>> it, it seems to me, except that you seem to decide opportunistically to not >>> apply it to "refute" comp. >>> >> >> Comp can't be refuted logically. >> >> >> Sorry, but the whole point is that it might be. It can be refuted >> logically, arithmetically, and empirically. >> > > It's a mirage. It seems like it could be refuted, but the built in bias of > logic overlooks the stacked deck. Just as emotions and ego have their > biases that warp our thinking, so too does logical thinking have an agenda > which undersignifies its competition. > > > > You are so wrong here that I have to pause. You talk in a way which > empties the dialog of any sense. You tell me in advance you need to be > illogical to refute my agnosticism in the matter. >
You don't have to be 'illogical', you just have to transcend strict logic...break the fourth wall...use some of that courage you were talking about. All that I am saying is that incompleteness supports the limits of logic, so that we cannot presume to hold sense to that standard if my view is true. > > How could that conversation have sense? I put my hypotheses on the table, > but here you put a gun on the table. > Haha, yes, that's the thing, sense is tyrannical and violent. It acts like it is following laws but it cheats and then blames something else. At least I'm telling you it's a gun, you've convinced yourself that your gun is just a polite hypothesis. > The choice is between logic, which is basically the most common part of > common sense, and war or violence. > It's precisely because logic is the most common part of common sense that it cannot parse the germ of sense, which is absolutely unprecedented. Identity is not just uncommon, but the opposite - unrepeatable, proprietary, anti-mechnical. There is no choice at all. There is the illusion of logic and the reality of having to carve some kind of genuine sanity out of this thing, moment by moment. If we wait for logic to give us permission, we lose the moment. > > Your theory is "don't ask", but I realize also "don't argue". > Asking and arguing is great, but you can't get away from the fact that it doesn't make sense for the one who asks and argues to be a logical machine. It is comp which ultimately makes asking and arguing irrelevant, but it does so like a vampire - obligating us to invite us in..be fair to the imposter and let him take your brain. > > That might be correct, and provable in your non-comp theory, but that is > not an argument against comp. > (And this is no more an argument in favor of comp of course). > It is an argument against comp in my non-comp theory. If it comes down to choosing between the certainty of life and awareness as you know it and taking a gamble on logic and computation, do you say yes to the farmer? If we aren't being faced with death with a mad doctor as our only hope, would we gamble with our lives? Would a machine say yes to the farmer? > > > > > >>> Randomness comes up in comp predictions? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes. At step seven, as the UD will notably dovetail on all normal >>> differentiation, on a continuum. The iterated WM self-duplication is a part >>> of UD*. >>> >> >> What becomes random, and why? >> >> >> >> Are you OK with step 3 of the UDA? >> > > I don't think so. Teleportation? > > > > No, the FPI. The fact that you cannot predict, in your personal diary, > what you will write tomorrow, when you will be copied and sent at two > different places simultaneously (or not). > Nothing like that is going to happen. There aren't going to be any copies of me. > > > > > Sociopaths and actors refute comp. Blindsight refutes comp. Keyboard > passwords refute comp. Sports refute comp. etc. > > > You do have a problem with logic. > Maybe I do, because I don't see how that follows. When I list examples, you change the subject every time. > > > > > > > >> I am just saying that you have not prove that comp is false. Telling me >> that I have not proved comp will not do the work, as comp implies that no >> such proof can ever exist. >> > > It's not a matter of proof, because proof has nothing to do with > consciousness. It is a matter of what makes more sense overall. > > > > That is wishful thinking. It is your right. I have no problem with > non-comp, but I do have problem with people using any theory pretending to > refute something, and actually unable to do it. > I'm refuting the metatheory that comp's refutability is related to its truth. I'm suggesting that specifically, comp is a theoretical construct which brilliantly reduces a theory of consciousness to simple elements, but that this is actually not related directly to consciousness, just as the shadow of a swimming pool is not full of water, even though it moves like water and reflects light like water. > > There is no problem working in different incompatible theories. But you > can't use that incompatibility to pretend knowing that the other theory is > false. > I never claim to know, I only see what makes sense to me. What I see is that there are too many contradictions between what kind of world there would be if comp were true and what kind of world is actually experienced. There are too few compelling reasons to entertain comp outside of the mathematics and logic from which comp is derived. There is too much at 'steak' to let Frankensuns and corporate persons displace anthropology and biology. > > > >>> Well said, but that's 1p. >>> >> >> What suggests that there can be any other kind of absence? >> >> >> >> 3p absence, like a fridge without orange juice. >> > > The fridge doesn't know there is no orange juice. > > > And this does not entail the presence of orange juice, indeed. > There's no difference between the presence and absence of orange juice without some experience in which the difference can be presented. Craig > > Bruno > > > > > > 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/d/optout.
