Thanks.
How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence
hypothesis fit or not fit into this?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion,
> which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with
> Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which
> can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist
> hypothesis in the cognitive science.
>
> In a nutshell, it is the problem of how a qualitative experiential
> feeling of consciousness can be associated with third personal object
> relations. How a grey brain makes us feel color, if you want. And then
> it touches question like "does consciousness have a role?", "is there
> a first person death", etc.
>
> You can Google on it on the web, but in this list we are far in advance :)
>
> Most people still believe simultaneously in MECHANISM, and WEAK
> MATERIALISM (the idea that stuffy matter exists). My point is that
> iMECHANISM and MATERIALISM (or PHYSICALISM) are epistemologically
> incompatible. Mech + Mater. leads to person eliminativism. Mech itself
> leads, by UDA, to a material appearance emerging from infinite sum of
> purely mathematical computations. UDA shows that computationalism
> leads to refutable facts, and one of my main point is that
> computationalism (or digital mechanism) is empirically testable, and
> indeed confirmed (not proved!) in his most startling features by
> quantum mechanics. Digitalism makes the mind-body problem a throughly
> scientific problem. It is the least I want to show.
>
> Read the paper here if you want save your time:
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
> <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>
>
> Those results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many
> intuitions discussed in this list.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
>> I'm ignorant of what you mean by "mind body problem." Can you
>> explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not
>>> aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he
>>> is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory).
>>>
>>> The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his
>>> unconscious use of the identity thesis in the "philosophy of
>>> mind" (alias cognitive science).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
>>>> comments?
>>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jul 02 2009 - 11:48:42 PDT