Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

In my view, Penrose's theory that computation could not explain human thought was based on the flawed idea that there exist problems that humans could solve which no computer could. I prepared the following to offer my explanation for why this is an unsupported supposition: - In

Re: What are atheists for?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> God is omnipotent and you are confused as to why I should think such a >> beings should be able to convince me He exists if He really does! > > > ​> ​ > I don't believe in such a God. I cannot make sense of omnipotence. > ​If

Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has given a technical refutation of this position, but I'm insufficiently competent in the relevant areas for this to be intuitively convincing for me. So

Re: What are atheists for?

On 03 Apr 2017, at 17:42, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>​> If God existed He would have absolutely problem in proving His existence even to someone like me. ​ ​> ​In which theory? ​The guy who said there is no such

Re: What are atheists for?

On 02 Apr 2017, at 22:41, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/2/2017 6:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Words are used to make definition, but the definition are semantical, or axiomatical, and point usually on thing which are not number. The words "consciousness" or "trith", as word, are easy to