Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 22 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal wrote >>> what is the meaning of "computation is physical"? >> Which word didn't you understand? > The word "is", in the sentence "computation is physical". That sounds as if it were written by a lawyer. Sc

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 23 September 2013 17:23, chris peck wrote: > > Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that > predates Darwin. But we know of them through Darwin. Darwin wasn't great > for having these ideas, because they didn't originate with him. He was > great because his work mad

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

demarcation principle has become. Rightly or wrongly it has been appropriated as a good principle so universally that smelly, lazy and ignorant academics insist that its just common sense. That only 'an idiot' would fail to see it. 200 years ago though, and certainly in 1600s, that j

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Thanks! If I have enough time (and paper in the printer :) I will give it a go --- since I seem to have unfortunately lost interest in finishing BOI after the (in)famous "Why are flowers beautiful?" chapter. On 23 September 2013 13:37, Russell Standish wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:14:13

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:14:13PM +1200, LizR wrote: > That sounds potentially interesting. I too have stalled at point 8 (I think > - the MGA, anyway). > > Would it be http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf > > Well, whether it is or not, that looks worth a read, if I can get my head > around it.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

That sounds potentially interesting. I too have stalled at point 8 (I think - the MGA, anyway). Would it be http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf Well, whether it is or not, that looks worth a read, if I can get my head around it. On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, S

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal wrote >>> what is the meaning of "computation is physical"? >>> >> >> >> Which word didn't you understand? >> > > > The word "is", in the sentence "computation is physical". That sounds as if it were written by a lawyer. Scientists don't need to consult a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 21 Sep 2013, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > And the, what is the meaning of "computation is physical"? Which word didn't you understand? The word "is", in the sentence "computation is physical". > It looks to me that this consists in single

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

013 8:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >> A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform, theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to z

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

hing-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it worse than that. Doesn't the smartphon

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > And the, what is the meaning of "computation is physical"? > Which word didn't you understand? > It looks to me that this consists in single out some universal system and > declare that only running it makes things real.[...] What does mean > "physi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:00, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", Yes, Landauer is a major proponents of that idea. If that is true, then computationalism is false. Bullshit. I gave you the reference,

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 20 Sep 2013, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2013 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A computation is a process. > I can agree with this, unless you meant a "physical process", OK. As

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/20/2013 8:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >>The way to completely avoid Landauer's limit is to make all operations reversible, never lose any information so that the whole calculation could be reversed. Then there's no entropy dumped to the environment and Landauer's limit doesn't apply.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it worse than that. Doesn't the smartphone (or cel phone) radiate even when you're not talking, so that the system knows where you are if someone calls you? The only improvement in efficiency I could suggest is electronically steerable antennae to reduce the

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

gt; [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L.W. Sterritt > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:09 PM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Cc: L.W. Sterritt > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > > Chris, Brent and meekerdb, > While we ha

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

T From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L.W. Sterritt Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Cc: L.W. Sterritt Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Chris, Brent and meekerdb, While

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:25 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/20/2013 4:40 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Current

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >> A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform, >> theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like, >> but the less energy you use the slower the calculation. >> > > > How does that square wi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Chris, Brent and meekerdb, While we have been considering optimizing the efficiency of circuitry and software, we neglected that while talking on the smartphone, 1/2 of the total power budget goes to radiation from the smartphone antenna - about 2 Watts as I remember. That will drain a typical

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/20/2013 4:40 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Current software is very energy efficient -- and on so many levels. I worked developing code used in the Windows Smartphone and it was during that time that I had to first think hard about the energy efficiency dimension in computing -- as measured

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

: meekerdb To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/20/2013 1:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >>> A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform, >>> theoretically

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

. Sterritt Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:27 PM Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Chris, It's the Landauer argument relating energy to information, as Frank wrote.   There is a summary article in the same issue of Nature: Philip Ball, "The unavoidable cost of computatio

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

  From: L.W. Sterritt To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Cc: L.W. Sterritt Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:27 PM Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Chris, It's the Landauer argument relating energy to information, as Frank wrote.   There is a su

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/20/2013 1:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >> A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform, theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like, but the less energy you use the slower the calculation. How does that square with the increased (well me

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

> -Chris > From: L.W. Sterritt > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Cc: L.W. Sterritt > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:50 PM > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > > > Chris, > An article in Nature last year presents a calculation of t

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

n Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR wrote: >> As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", all computations must use >> e

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", >> > > Yes, Landauer is a major proponents of that idea. If that is true, then > computationalism is false. > Bullshit. > With comp, a physical process is the result of the first person (pl

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

chitecture and is performing thousands maybe millions of tasks each and every second.   -Chris From: L.W. Sterritt To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Cc: L.W. Sterritt Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:50 PM Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad nam

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 20 Sep 2013, at 11:46, chris peck wrote: Hi Bruno Im not all that wrapped by Popper's method possibly because I have a background in the soft sciences where I think it is much harder to devise falsifiable statements. Other minds being unobservable and all that... I like Popper's cri

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

> watt-second.[1][2] This is an improvement by over a trillion times in 54 > years." > > Size (or rather the lack of it) matters in this equation. > -Chris > > From: John Clark > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 chris peck wrote: > its at the core of Popper's view that theories should aim to be productive > Wow, theories should be productive, only a super genius could figure that out! > in making falsifiable predictions and you are only regurgitating that > view because rightly or

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/20/2013 10:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", all computations must use energy and generate heat. And what's the difference between a physical process

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/20/2013 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> A computation is a process. > I can agree with this, unless you meant a "physical process", OK. As Rolf

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR wrote: >> As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", all computations must >> use energy and generate heat. And what's the difference between a physical >> process and a non-physical process anyway? >> >> > I thought it was only erasing the results of c

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 20 Sep 2013, at 00:10, LizR wrote: On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A computation is a process. > I can agree with this, unless you meant a "physical process", OK. As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical",

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A computation is a process. > I can agree with this, unless you meant a "physical process", OK. As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", Yes, Landauer is a major proponents of t

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

ientific fold and I often read you complaining of current dogmas. I would have thought him to be a choice thinker for this list generally. All the best --- Original Message --- From: "Bruno Marchal" Sent: 20 September 2013 12:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

t he has. You think about science in Popper's terms. Like it or not, you are a fan-boy of Popper demarcating between 'good science' and 'pseudoscience'. It seems to me you are more Popper than anyone else on this list. All the best. Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:10:17 +120

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> >> A computation is a process. >>> >> >> > I can agree with this, unless you meant a "physical process", OK. >> > > As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", all computations must

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

t. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New- York, Buffalo. By accepting that an inductive inference machine proposes, from time to time, unfalsifiable theories, you enlarge non trivially the class of phenomena that the machine can recognize, and build correct theories about. Note the (slight) par

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> A computation is a process. >> > > > I can agree with this, unless you meant a "physical process", OK. > As Rolf Landauer said "Computation is physical", all computations must use energy and generate heat. And what's the difference bet

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 18 Sep 2013, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Name a number relation that does not involve a computation or some other process! >It is difference between a number j used as a name for a program, like in the arithmetical relation phi_j(k) = r,

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Chris, I get an empty message here. Bruno On 18 Sep 2013, at 17:57, chris peck wrote: --- Original Message --- From: "Bruno Marchal" Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 18 Sep 2013, at 04

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/18/2013 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote: > Should other theories (quantum loop gravity) which potentially offer more scope for falsifiability receive a greater proportion of the available resources. So far quantum loop gravity is no better at making testable predictions than string t

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Name a number relation that does not involve a computation or some other >> process! >> > > >It is difference between a number j used as a name for a program, like in > the arithmetical relation phi_j(k) = r, > A arithmetical relation is a process.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM, chris peck wrote: > > You say that this demarcation principle has had no influence in science. > Within Psychology however, for better or worse, Psychoanalysis is now > perceived as a faintly absurd artifact of history. No one gets hot under > the collar about pe

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

er claim on resources generally I would have thought...thus the current criticism of String Theory. All the best --- Original Message --- From: "Bruno Marchal" Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

--- Original Message --- From: "Bruno Marchal" Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote: > Hi John > > >> Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einst

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

e machine proposes, from time to time, unfalsifiable theories, you enlarge non trivially the class of phenomena that the machine can recognize, and build correct theories about. Note the (slight) paradox here. Bruno Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:39:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Wh

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> So you are suggesting that a thing like broken glass is made of numbers > I was just saying that things are not made up of things. A broken glass is NOT made of number. That has no meaning at

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

and the movement he spearheaded had an effect? Of course it has. Its pompous boneheaded bullshit to suggest otherwise. All the best. Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:39:10 -0400 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Mon, Sep 16, 2

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> So you are suggesting that a thing like broken glass is made of numbers >> > > > I was just saying that things are not made up of things. A broken > glass is NOT made of number. That has no meaning at all. What happens is > that addition and mul

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Feynman showed that virtual particles must exist, particles that can > violate the law of conservation of mass-energy, at least for a short time. > Feynman showed that when a particle moves from point X to point Y it can do > so by any path with var

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 15 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > As long as you suggest that there are things "made of" things, you are staying in the Aristotelian frame. Other can suggest that there are no such things at all, just natural numbers relative computat

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 15 Sep 2013, at 18:02, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Me: >> Feynman predicted in 1948 that the magnetic moment of an electron can't be exactly 1 in Dirac units as had been thought because it is effected by an infinite (and I do mean infinite

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > As long as you suggest that there are things "made of" things, you are > staying in the Aristotelian frame. Other can suggest that there are no such > things at all, just natural numbers relative computations, > So you are suggesting that a thing like

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Me: >> > >> Feynman predicted in 1948 that the magnetic moment of an electron can't >> be exactly 1 in Dirac units as had been thought because it is effected by >> an infinite (and I do mean infinite and not just astronomical) number of >> vi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 13 Sep 2013, at 19:49, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Science, or at least theoretical physics, is all about explaining physical laws in terms of other more general laws. Either this process goes on forever like a infinitely nested Russia

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Hi John, Roulette wheels are technically deterministic. I know with your "cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels" aphorism you're trying to make things as simple as possible, but that is potentially confusing. Terren On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Science, or at least theoretical physics, is all about explaining > physical laws in terms of other more general laws. Either this process goes > on forever like a infinitely nested Russian doll, or it does not go on > forever and come

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 13 Sep 2013, at 03:18, meekerdb wrote: On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but forbid you to ask "why there is a broken glass?". That is what some materialist, and all physicalist are doing for the notion of "ph

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 12 Sep 2013, at 21:25, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Feyerabend was correct on this (at least). I ask myself why in the 21'th century would any educated man agree with a certified jackass like Feyerabend who said "the church at the time o

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 12 Sep 2013, at 22:02, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Feynman was very bad in philosophy. Even in the philosophy of QM, he has avoided all questions, and only put in footnote some remarks showing that he did not believe in the wave collapse

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 11 Sep 2013, at 21:40, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Einstein read Kant, and loved Spinoza, and admit his influence in his own research. He may have read and loved detective stories too. Einstein was interested in things other than science, like polit

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/12/2013 6:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but forbid you to ask "why there is a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but > forbid you to ask "why there is a broken glass?". That is what some > materialist, and all physicalist are doing for the not

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but forbid you to ask "why there is a broken glass?". That is what some materialist, and all physicalist are doing for the notion of "physical universe". They say that we cannot find an

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/12/2013 3:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists ". the audience were well trained and educated atheists, but they couldn´t avoid to laugh loudly at the end of the p

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013/9/12 John Clark > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would >> be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists. >> > > There is certainly some truth in that. Religion can make otherwise

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Feynman was very bad in philosophy. Even in the philosophy of QM, he has > avoided all questions, and only put in footnote some remarks showing that > he did not believe in the wave collapse. He added often: don't try to > understand what h

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Feyerabend was correct on this (at least). I ask myself why in the 21'th century would any educated man agree with a certified jackass like Feyerabend who said "the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galil

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 11 Sep 2013, at 21:25, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > My point was just that the verdict against Galileo was rational, or Popperian. I don't believe that Karl Popper was as deep a thinker as many on this list do, but I don't think he was a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would > be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists. > There is certainly some truth in that. Religion can make otherwise sane people suicidal and suicida

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 11 Sep 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote: On 9/11/2013 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories, and it can provides evidences for

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists ". the audience were well trained and educated atheists, but they couldn´t avoid to laugh loudly at the end of the phrase. The problem with Dennet and in general wit

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Every AI scientist, category theorist or semioticist, and cognitive psychologist just tries to redo the work of Aristotle or Spinoza with different names and in a donwgraded way, to fit the fashion prejudices and the needs of this time, that includes extreme reductionist scientifists like you. 20

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

"But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with reality if there's any reality at all" There may be an underlyng reality behind. Matter and their phenomena can be a derived reality Math -> compution -> time -> mind -> geometry -> space -> matter and phenomena 2013/9/11 meek

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/11/2013 11:26 AM, John Clark wrote: Philosophy is NOT worthless, it's philosophers that are worthless because, despite the similar sounding words, philosophers haven't done any philosophy in 200 years. Since philosophy can be useful it's reasonable that some people try to specialize in doi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/11/2013 11:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: "But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with reality if there's any reality at all" There may be an underlyng reality behind. Matter and their phenomena can be a derived reality Math -> compution -> time -> mind -> geome

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > My point was just that the verdict against Galileo was rational, or > Popperian. > I don't believe that Karl Popper was as deep a thinker as many on this list do, but I don't think he was as big a fool as THAT! > Aristotle was refuted, but

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Einstein read Kant, and loved Spinoza, and admit his influence in his own > research. > He may have read and loved detective stories too. Einstein was interested in things other than science, like politics, and those thinkers may have helped him there

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/11/2013 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories, and it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth. S

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM, chris peck wrote: > Given the way John has framed the task any contribution made by xyz will > end up not being a contribution in philosophy. Take Charles Pierce who > pretty much founded semiotics and made contributions in fields as diverse > as psychology and che

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

>I don't see how reporting on something that people have known for thousands of years is new or unexpected. It's new because most white, educated reading audiences at that time didn't hang out with Huichol shamans. It's like saying 'why would anyone listen to Elvis Presley sing 'Hound Dog' wh

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories, and it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth. Scientific theories are certainly not auto

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 Sep 2013, at 17:47, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: >chris Lol. A good mockig of the reductionist obsession with the details and despising the big picture. For sure you have work hard to certify that John has asked that three times and no

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 Sep 2013, at 17:35, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. >> OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

ilosophy. He is expending all this effort on what he has argued is > worthless. He is one big hypocrite whose very position defeats itself. The > position that the only things that have value are tangible scientific > results is of course not in itself a scientific result. John is an

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

ep 2013 22:58:21 +0200 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > deep, clear, precise, unexpec

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true + discovered in the last 2 >> centuries by philosopher who is "not scientist" by John Clark's arbit

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

self-defeating. Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That's right. I´m not jokin

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

True. Statistics are useful for a short period of time. But evolutionary biology has nothing to do with short periods of time 2013/9/10 meekerdb > On 9/10/2013 3:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > It was zero. but the evolutiometrist said me a few decades ago that my > fitness was certainly

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

-list Sent: Tue, Sep 10, 2013 1:50 pm Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? As usual, I see a microcosm of science in this thread. From Bruno's perspective, the power of reason is in its ability to see through its own bias to find questions, problems, and shades of grey. From Jo

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/10/2013 3:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It was zero. but the evolutiometrist said me a few decades ago that my fitness was certainly 10. That is why I said that either this measure is flawed or alternatively, if it is accurate (like this), it is useless (as a durable parameter to predi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

As usual, I see a microcosm of science in this thread. From Bruno's perspective, the power of reason is in its ability to see through its own bias to find questions, problems, and shades of grey. From John Clark's perspective, reason is about black and white evidence which provides answers and

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true + discovered in the last 2 > centuries by philosopher who is "not scientist" by John Clark's arbitrary > standards? Ok. Aldous Huxley, writer and philosophical m

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories, and it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth. Scientific theories are certainly not automatically the truth. But to say science "proves

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal >>> philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. >>> >> >> >> OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time >> of Galileo was much more fa

<    1   2   3   4   5   >