Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 7:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 25/04/2017 7:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's you who's begging

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25/04/2017 7:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, 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 computa

Re: What are atheists for?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:07:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > But in my view ontology > is theory dependent, i.e. you find a theory that works well as an > explanation and a predictor and then that theory provides an > ontology: the POVI (intersubjective observable) elements of the > theory. So

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 6:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > ​>> ​ >> separating the stuff we want from the stuff we don't is important, that's >> why we say Michelangelo's huge statue of David is 500 years old and not far >> older even though in the platonic sense David was inside a gigantic block >> of C

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 10:19 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think there's any qu

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Brent, I comment the last posts in one post. On 25 Apr 2017, at 07:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/23/2017 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2017, at 06:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/21/2017 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But computa

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 6:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 at 5:58 am, John Clark > wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>>wrote: ​>> ​ ​Suppose just for ​ ​the sake ​of argumen

Re: What are atheists for?

I was off line for several days because my youngest daughter was getting married Saturday and I was hosting relatives who flew in from far away. Brent On 4/25/2017 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno (I have to go, I see you wrote many posts, Brent. Hope you sleep well). -- You received thi

Re: What are atheists for?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > Empirical evidence requires observation. ​Yes.​ > ​> ​ > How do you observe > ​ ​ > consciousness? ​I can only observe my own consciousness I can't observe your's, if I could then I wouldn't be me I'd be you. But I can observe intelligent

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 2:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The epistemological contradiction comes from the fact that with mechanism + weak materialism, you get a material universe that cannot have any rôle related to your consciousness Then why does drinking tequila have such a big effect on my consciousn

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 2:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting com

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 4/25/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting computati

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/25/2017 1:08 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think there's any que

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I use "I" because there is no ambiguity, > ​Then prove it, replace "I" with "Bruno Marchal" and see how far "you" get in a world that contains "I" duplicating machines. > ​> ​ > given the definition given, and it is useful to remind

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: 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 t

Re: What are atheists for?

Hi Brent, I comment the last posts in one post. On 25 Apr 2017, at 07:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/23/2017 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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 n

Re: What are atheists for?

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 4:50:08 AM UTC+2, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:12:38PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > On 4/24/2017 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >>This world is 'objective' in the sense that there is > > >>intersubjective agreement about it

Re: What are atheists for?

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 at 5:58 am, 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. >>> Therefo

Re: R: Re: What are atheists for?

On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: "Quentin Anciaux": How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to p

Re: Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 25/04/2017 6:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting computational

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017, at 06:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: I don't think there's any question that non-physical things exist, like chess and insurance and computations. The question was whether the assumpt

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017, at 04:56, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Apr 2017, at 08:31, Brent Meeker wrote: 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

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017, at 04:49, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:12:38PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This world is 'objective' in the sense that there is intersubjective agreement about it. That happens in multi-user video games, and a

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, 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 relyi

Re: What are atheists for?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computa

Re: R: Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: "Quentin Anciaux": How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything? You're building your lower layer u

Weak Materialism versus Physicalism

On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the hypothesis th

Re: What are atheists for?

On 25 Apr 2017 5:15 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/24/2017 10:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 24 Apr 2017 7:32 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: 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 t

Re: What are atheists for?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:38:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/24/2017 7:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:12:38PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> > >>On 4/24/2017 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > This world is 'objective' in the sense that there is > i