Re: What are atheists for?

I think the concept of computationalism in a physicalist frame is meaningless, or only can be viewed as a cute story about the real thing... computation is not a physical notion, so either the mind is a computation, in which case physicalism is in that setting is not the ontology, or the mind is a

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/23/2017 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Apr 2017, at 21:20, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal >wrote: ​> ​ Physical computation needs matter, because a physical computation is a mathematical computation implemente

Re: What are atheists for?

I don't think there's any question that non-physical things exist, like chess and insurance and computations. The question was whether the assumption that computations can instantiate a mind, i.e. the possibility of a conscious robot, entails a contradiction of something. The "something" havi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/22/2017 7:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that there is some mysterious substance (he finally called it a "soul") that is not copied

Re: What are atheists for?

On 24/04/2017 1:42 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 09:38:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the > hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry Bruno, it's > easier to write for the purpose of this discussion :). You are > declaring that mind supe

Re: What are atheists for?

I think you understand, Bruce, that step 7 shows that any ontological property beyond universal computation and robustness can have no phenomenological entailment. It heavily relies on the CT thesis for that. In this sense, ontology can be sliced away by Occam's razor, applicable to primitive physi

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 09:38:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a > >computation with physics first, without relying on abstract > >mathematical notion. > > A computation with physics is wha

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> John Clark understands the setup but not the question because a very odd >> word was used in it, "I". >> Not that predictions, correct ones or incorrect ones, have anything to do >> with a sense of personal individuality ​ >> ​bu

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 11:06 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 5:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me, not physi

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> ​Robinson​ >> showed that if you do certain activities in a certain sequence then you >> can produce correct mathematical calculations without producing any >> incorrect mathematical calculations. But without matter that obeys the laws >>

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 10:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 01:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 9:03 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The contradiction is in requiring computation which is a mathematical notion, if physicalism is true, so everything reduce to matter, computationalism is fa

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Suppose just for ​ >> ​t​ >> he sake ​of argument that non-physical computations did not exist, how >> would our physical world be different? > > > ​> ​ > It would like if the number 2 does not exist. > ​No it would not because

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​ > physics as such use mathematics to explain, > ​Yes, mathematicians are always saying mathematics is a language and mathematics is the language that best describes physics. But as members of this list often say the map is not the territory and t

Re: What are atheists for?

Who whole debate is about which is lower and which an which higher. In my view logic is just rules for manipulating language that preserver an attribute which we denominate "t" and which we intend to map onto the correspondence meaning of "true". That's why different logics are invented when i

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 22 Apr 2017, at 23:58, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 at 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​ > The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. > ​You don't need a proof to know that you can feel the physical table in front of you, you don't need a proof to know that your physical hand can not ​ pass through the physical

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 21 Apr 2017, at 21:40, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Do you understand this: you are duplicated 24 times per second during 1h30 into as many copies can be sent in front of one of the 2^(16180 * 1) possible images on a screen with 16180 * 1 pixels, which can be bla

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 5:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. That is solipsism. No that would be if i'd sa

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23 Apr 2017, at 04:08, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything? ​Physics does not need logic or mathematics or anything else to prove it's existence to us because we a

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23 Apr 2017, at 01:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 9:03 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The contradiction is in requiring computation which is a mathematical notion, if physicalism is true, so everything reduce to matter, computationalism is false by definition, as computation as suc

Re: What are atheists for?

> > > > On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 1:50:12 PM UTC+2, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> > On 23/04/2017 7:49 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> I have experience of rocks, but not quanta. >> > >> > It is a pity that your don't really

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23 Apr 2017, at 01:33, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​The contradiction is in requiring computation which is a mathematical notion, ​Notions just like calculations are physical. Physical calculations are physical. calculation is a

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23 Apr 2017, at 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that there is some mysterious substance

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 23/04/2017 9:50 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >>> >>> On 23/04/2017 7:49 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: I have experience of rocks, but not quanta. >>> >>> It is a pity that y

Re: What are atheists for?

On 22 Apr 2017, at 23:58, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 at 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that >> th

Re: What are atheists for?

On 22 Apr 2017, at 21:58, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​>> ​​Suppose just for ​​the sake ​of argument that non- physical computations did not exist, how would our physical world be different? There would be no difference. Therefore either non- physica

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 9:50 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 7:49 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: I have experience of rocks, but not quanta. It is a pity that you don't really understand any physics. If you did, you might see the inanity of a comm

Re: What are atheists for?

On 22 Apr 2017, at 21:52, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​Eleminativists go to the​ ​extreme of denying that 1p views exist I don't know any​ eleminativists​ The best known are the Churchland couple, especially Patricia. But Dennett and many others are

Re: What are atheists for?

On 22 Apr 2017, at 16:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Apr 2017, at 12:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: I will gently help a little bit John here, if you don't mind. Not only I did claim that, but will claim it again! No problem :) I have

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 23/04/2017 7:49 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> I have experience of rocks, but not quanta. > > It is a pity that your don't really understand any physics. If you did, you > might see the inanity of a comment like this. Name-calling is so

Re: What are atheists for?

On 22 Apr 2017, at 06:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But computations does not need matter, no more than the number 2 needs two bottles of milk to make sense. The number 2 needs two instances of SOMETHING to make sense. Yes, for example two unities.

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion. A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I am currently working on. I can describe

Re: What are atheists for?

On 22 Apr 2017, at 06:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2017, at 22:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/20/2017 12:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That looks nice. So now, I ask to you, and to everybody a question, which is important, and still open alt

Re: What are atheists for?

On 21 Apr 2017, at 21:20, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Physical computation needs matter, because a physical computation is a mathematical computation implemented in a physical, material, environment. ​ ​But computations does not need matte

Re: What are atheists for?

On 21 Apr 2017, at 20:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​>> ​all that's really saying is that we have a subjective feeling of time and space, but we already knew that. ​> ​It goes well beyond that, as the narrative is at pains to set out. Hoyle'

Re: What are atheists for?

It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion. Le 23 avr. 2017 12:45 PM, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : > On 23/04/2017 6:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 23 avr. 2017 10:32, "Bruce Kellett" a > écrit :

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 6:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 23 avr. 2017 10:32, "Bruce Kellett" > a écrit : But that does not prove that the computation does not run on a physical computer. I take JC's point to be that your assumption of the primacy of the abst

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 7:49 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: I have experience of rocks, but not quanta. It is a pity that your don't really understand any physics. If you did, you might see the inanity of a comment like this. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 23/04/2017 6:18 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >>> >>> On 23/04/2017 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: >

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 23 avr. 2017 10:32, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 23/04/2017 6:18 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 23/04/2017 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker >>> wrote: >>> On 4/21/2017 3:42 A

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 6:18 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: What basis do you have for claiming that the rules of inference are of a higher level? They are perfectly easily understood as deriving from experience -- i.e., from our experience of an objective external world. No because it uses

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 23/04/2017 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that

Re: What are atheists for?

Did not see the rest of the post. Le 23 avr. 2017 09:57, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 23 avr. 2017 09:57, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. That is solipsism.

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 5:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" > a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. That is solipsism. No that would be if i'd say o

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. That is solipsism. No that would be if i'd say only me is real... That's not what I said. It's a fact that the only *direct* experience I have

R: Re: What are atheists for?

"Quentin Anciaux": How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's contradictory. # David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" (and also about "introspective measuremen

Re: What are atheists for?

On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. That is solipsism. Physics is an explanation of my experiences, not reality. So your experiences are not real? If physics explains your experiences, then physics is primary -- it is the real

Re: What are atheists for?

The only direct experience I have is me, not physics. Physics is an explanation of my experiences, not reality. Quentin Le 23 avr. 2017 4:08 AM, "John Clark" a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> How can you justify logic from physics if logic is pri

Re: What are atheists for?

If you take them as tools to explain physics, then yes. But you, don't. So no. Le 23 avr. 2017 8:52 AM, "Brent Meeker" a écrit : So you're defining computationalism as "not everything reduces to matter...and it's processes and relations?" That's quite different from the idea that consciousness