Re: A little Philosophising about Creationism

I tend to sympathize with a sort of Religious Humanism myself, since we are the beings with the dendrites. You atheists are way too harsh on religious peeps-not that you don't have a point, but, not everything that works for you, works for everyone else. Yes, religious massacres, God, yes,

Re: A little Philosophising about Creationism

John I'm​ afraid the point, such as there was, of my post seems to have escaped you since you have chosen to comment only on the preamble, which was intended simply to sketch an introduction before moving on to the burden of the argument. Unfortunately you don't appear to have addressed yourself

Re: A little Philosophising about Creationism

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: ​> ​ > If Darwinism may be said to have shown how the illusion of design may > exist without need of a designer, we have still perhaps lacked an > equivalently powerful form of explication that might show how the illusion >

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that

Re: What are atheists for?

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> ​If you insist on using common English words in non-standard ​ways it's >> your own damn fault if you're constantly misunderstood! > > > ​> ​ > I reassure you, I am constantly misunderstood only by people not reading

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: 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

A little Philosophising about Creationism

If Darwinism may be said to have shown how the illusion of design may exist without need of a designer, we have still perhaps lacked an equivalently powerful form of explication that might show how the illusion of creativity could exist without need of invoking a creator. It has been claimed in

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 5 Apr 2017 9:54 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: 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

Re: What are atheists for?

On 05 Apr 2017, at 00:33, John Clark wrote: 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

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

I add a commentary. Penrose and Hammerof did agree at the start, but then Hammerof's plea for a quantum brain made him back into computationalism, as a quantum computer is still a universal number. Penrose did not, as he was aware of this, and seem to want "non- computationalism", so he

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 05 Apr 2017, at 06:28, Jason Resch wrote: 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

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: 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