On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:25, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com
>
wrote:
Thanks for illustrating what I just said.
What you just said was:
"
Most sane people sooner or later realize that the only way to win
this
game is not to play it
"
And then I just said:
"If true then the only logical conclusion to make is that
Telmo Menezes
is not sane."
It is also possible that I am an outlier in this regard (most sane
people...) or that I haven't reached the point where I am sick of
playing the game (sooner or later).
It is further possible that what I mean by "this game" is the game
of
arguing about the validity of the UDA (and please spare me from your
usual jokes where you go to wikipedia looking for meaning of the
acronym. Yes yes it's super funny).
This is your usual modus operandi and I am sick of it. I say modus
operandi because, judging from certain contributions you made to
this
mailing list it is quite clear that you do not have the limited
intelligence required to honestly make such mistakes. That would be
forgivable, but here, and more importantly as you do when discussing
Bruno's theories, you argue in bad faith.
Finally, yes it could be that I am not sane. Unlike you, I consider
this possibility. The fact that you do not consider it is precisely
what makes you a religious fundamentalist. Just because your
religion
has no name, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
I'll spare you the trouble and paste you usual bromide. Here you go:
"Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12."
This is precisely the sort of manipulative bullshit that religious
people use. The implicit appeal to common sense. The suggestion that
your opponent is childish. Anything but directly addressing the
ideas
of your interlocutor.
You argue in bad faith, you destroy honest discussion to score
internet points and you bully people that were nothing but nice to
you.
Rather accurate description I'm afraid.
I think John Clark's religion has a name, though, it is
Materialism----which includes Weak Materialism: the belief in some
primary matter and/or its corresponding epistemological version:
Physicalism (physics is the fundamental science, physics can't be
reduced to anything else simpler).
I use "weak materialism" for that religion, to oppose it to the use
of "materialism" in philosophy of mind, which is that not only
matter/force exists, but only matter/force exists.
Note that mechanism is what makes materialism working well, as
Diderot and the modern materialist and Naturalist usually think,
but only up to some point as materialism stumbles down quickly on
the mind/body problem. I think Descartes got the correct (monist)
answer, but in his meditation, he needs to assume that God is good,
which, even if true, cannot be assumed in a scientific derivation.
But I think he got the main point though. Too bad he never finished
his text "À la Recherche de la Vérité". Too bad he dismissed logic
and neoplatonism, but there are historical contingencies which
might explain this.
Note that it is possible to disbelieve in primary matter and still
be physicalist. (using a particular or special universal number +
some oracle).
When we assume mechanism, it is up to the materialist to explain
what is primary matter and how it get the focus of consciousness,
and it is up to the physicalist to explain what is the rôle, for
consciousness, of the fundamental laws of physics, and why they
can't be explained in term of the (infinities of) computations
(measure).
Explanation is easy. Prediction is hard. Physicalist can predict
that cutting off oxygen from your brain will cause loss of
consciousness.
That is not 3p testable.
Anyway, I just show that Physicalism is incompatible with Mechanism +
Occam.
Materialism needs to add a magic thing which has never been obesrved
by anyone (primary matter) or something even more magical making the
physical "reality" able to make "real" what already exist from much
less assumption.
But I decide nothing: I show that physicalism versus mechanism can be
tested.
Explanations in terms of infinities of computations are like
physics explaining things as "A consequence of the state of the
universe and the laws of physics."
I don't submit an explanation. I submit a problem for the Mechanist.
Then I show that the machines have, in some sense, already solved a
part of the problem (the propositional part) and this in a
sufficiently precise way so as to be tested.
By QM, things fit more with mechanism than physicalism up to now. Of
course in some Newtonian era we might have thought differently. In
science we never know the truth as such, but we can find more or less
plausible theories.
Bruno
Brent
Some people, when they learn that you are open to the idea that
(weak) materialism is wrong, will believe, for a time, that you are
actually open to the fairy tales, superstition and magic, and so
believe that you are mad. When they realize the error, and that
immaterialism can also be only some mathematicalism, which usually
assumes *less* than physicalism, it is too much embarrassing for
them to admit.
Then they hate you cordially when they eventually understand that
they were the one still using magic in their religion.
Bruno
Thanks for illustrating what I just said.
John K Clark
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-
list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
