[ExI] CRACKPOTS (was electoral college)

[John Clark]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
wrote:

*>I can expect to see some kind of political bloviation just as much as I
> can expect your annual anti-curiosity psionics post*.*


There are still about 4 months remaining so maybe I won't be able to send
my iterated psi post this year, maybe this year we will at last get solid
proof it exists. Maybe but I very much doubt it and I'll bet you it won't
and I'll give you 1000 to 1 odds. If it does not happen by January 1 2019
you give me $100 and if it does happen I give you $100,000. So do we have a
bet? And remember I don't demand that the phenomenon be explained I just
want solid proof that the psi phenomenon (aka ESP aka Spiritualism aka
Witchcraft) needs to be explained, that is to say I just want evidence it
exists.


 *> Basically you say "there will never be a paper confirming the existence
> of magic published in Nature" even though of course any confirmed discovery
> would immediately leave the realm of magic.*


The universe is full of phenomena that scientists can't explain but none
call it magic and the idea that Science or Nature or Physical Review
Letters will not print ironclad proof of the existence of psi because they
can not explain it is utterly ridiculous. Nobody has a clue why the
universe is accelerating but the people who discovered that it is received
a Nobel Prize and it is considered by most to be one of the most important
scientific discoveries of the century.

*> Even a hundred years ago you would be laughed out of the room for
> suggesting most of what modern physics believes.  *


Physicist of a hundred years ago didn't even know the questions that most
modern physicist are trying to find answers to, you can't understand the
answer if you don't even know the question. All I want is proof that there
really is a psi question, we'll worry about an answer another time.

*> If you have solved the hard problem of consciousness and can tell me
> what the standard model has to do with qualia, I'm all ears!*


The hardest part of explaining the hard problem of consciousness is
confusion over the word "explain". If I say phenomenon X causes
consciousness I mean if X happens consciousness always follows, but you
will no doubt say that doesn't explain it because X itself is not
consciousness, but if X were consciousness that would be saying
consciousness is consciousness and that's just a tautology and would not
explain it either. So what is it that would satisfy you? And this is not
limited to qualia, if you come home and find a broken window and shards of
glass and a rock on the floor you would not hesitate to say the rock caused
the broken window even though a rock is not a broken window.

And of course you'll want to know what caused X, if I say Y did you'll ask
what caused Y, if I say Z did I know what you will ask next. But either
there is a infinite sequence of "what caused this" questions and reality is
like a infinitely nested Matryoshka doll with one doll always inside
another or the sequence terminates in a brute fact, there is after all no
law of logic that demands every event have a cause. I have a hunch in this
case the brute fact is consciousness is the way data feels like when it is
being processed.

Yet another cause of confusion is science just answers how questions, a why
question implies intent so a why question like why does consciousness exist
would be appropriate only if science had evidence for the existence of God.
And it doesn't


John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180820/09ee2e93/attachment.html>