| I am not an expert in whatever field "materialism" belongs, so I will defer to accepted knowledge (or lack thereof) as professed by layperson-friendly sources such as Wikipedia. Till the time I really get interested in these fine differences. May I point out that the tone you use in these discussions is not, in general, of a nature which encourages a lay person to even read what you say, much less to follow up on your ideas? People really do not like being looked down upon, and your writing comes across as quite condescending (among other things). Here are a couple of things from the parent comment to illustrate this: 1. "the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while ..." Do you see what's wrong with a statement of the form "What I want to prove is obvious to anyone who knows even a little something", and how it might come across as (i) unacceptable hand-waving even in a research paper in the relevant field, and (ii) highly condescending in public discourse? 2. The whole paragraph starting with "You can prove me wrong. ..." comes across as childish. Who am I, anyway, and why should I go to all that trouble to prove you wrong, even if I was somehow capable of doing it? As an analogy, suppose in a discussion on life outside earth I quote current expert consensus as found on Wikipedia as saying that there is potentially life on Europa [1]. And someone retorts saying "No. Prove me wrong. Just build a spaceship which can go bring some life from Europa." Do you see something wrong with such a response? In particular, do you see something wrong with the use of the word "just" here? 3. Your repeated insistence that everyone should read some work and critique it before countering your arguments comes across as obnoxious behaviour. 4. A minor point: it is Nagel, not Nagle. I mention this because I see you making the same mistake in multiple comments. You seem to have interesting points to make. It would be good if you make them in a way which people find enjoyable to read. [1] I made this up on the spot. I don't know what the current expert consensus is, so check Wikipedia before taking this as true :). (Edit: Formatting) |