> On 18 Sep 2019, at 13:11, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:02 AM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com > <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I think he means one can replace a human brain and/or nervous system with > > computer microchips and consciousness will be preserved, or perfectly > > simulated so the person who says "Yes doctor", will awake from the surgery > > thinking he/she's the same person, > > On some days the meaning of "Mechanism" may mean that in Brunospeak but on > other days it does not, such as the day Bruno said "it is not relevant to say > “yes” or “no” in a practical implementation of Mechanism”.
That does not change the definition of mechanism, that Grayson explained in the right way, although he does not mention that mechanism is a believe/assumption of the existence of level of substitution. Later I show that no machine can find its own level of substitution, but they can still make a bet, or an act of faith, if and when the doctor suggest they *migt* survive some disease through this, but of course, not in any provable way. That is why Mechanism is a theological axiom/hypothesis. It is the belief in some form of technical (then arithmetical) (re)-incarnation. What you say is true for all theories, and is akin to say that the logical consequence of a theory does not depend on your or me believing or assuming the theory. Now, in the thought experience, is it easier to fake we believe in the theory to get the consequences, but you could use “robots” instead of human, as the first person notion is defined in a third person way (the content of the 1p-personal diary, and “1p-personal diary” > The only thing that remains constant is that the Brunospeak meaning never has > any relationship to the English meaning of the word. And the same thing is > true for words like "God" and "theology”. No. My use of the term is English. It is even the Christian use in the period where the christian were neoplatonist. It is a common use, often precise by “the god of the philosopher”, on which the literature is extremely abundant. Like many atheists, you talk like if only the christians got the right vocabulary, and like them, you do everything to make us forget that theology has been a science for a millenium, and a very fertile one, as mathematics and physics are born from the neoplatonist doubt that physics was the fundamental science. Bruno > > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv24N15Ox3-6PD2c285wrHU9ubS5SrqtOU5GsRUAQGO0qg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv24N15Ox3-6PD2c285wrHU9ubS5SrqtOU5GsRUAQGO0qg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C19E1DC0-AD29-4351-B526-AFC048C65ADF%40ulb.ac.be.
