Hi,
2009/7/31 1Z <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden>:
>
>
>
> On 31 July, 14:57, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> On 31 Jul 2009, at 12:43, 1Z wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 31 July, 10:03, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> >> On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:32, 1Z wrote (to David):
>>
>> >>> But you haven't said what the problem is in the emergence of the
>> >>> mental
>> >>> from the physical
>>
>> >> It is usually called the mind-body problem. There are many good book
>> >> on the subject.
>>
>> > There are many bad solutions too. Finding a good solution
>> > means having an exat grasp of the problem, not saying in some
>> > vague way that mind and matter are different things.
>>
>> I don't see to what you make allusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> My own work is partially a reformulation of that problem (and
>> >> partially a beginning of a solution), when taking Mechanism seriously
>> >> into account.
>>
>> >> Tell us which step in UDA you have a problem of understanding with.
>> >> Give us a number between 01 and 8, and a justification. OK?
>>
>> > I don't have a problem in understanding anything. I have a problem
>> > in granting Platonism. Without Platonism, there is no UDA "just
>> > there".
>>
>> I guess you mean that there is no universal dovetailer (UD) out there.
>> Who ever said that? I just say that the UD exists in the sense that
>> you can prove its existence in a tiny weak part of Arithmetic.
>
> If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical
> proofs only prove mathematical "existence", not onltolgical
> existence. For a non-Platonist , 23 "exists" mathematically,
> but is not RITSIAR. The same goes for the UD
I don't understand what could be "mathematically existence" ? What is
"existence" ? RITSIAR is a point of view (of an observer)... If
something exists, it exists...
You're using "mathematical existence" as if it meant "no existence"...
why bother using existence at all then ?
>> > wihout a UDA there are no generated minds, without generated minds
>> > there is no illusory matter.
>>
>> Sure. But the UD exists, like prime number exists.
>
> Which for a non-Platononists is not at all
> in the relevant sense.
>
>> > At best you have an alternative to
>> > materalism-realism,
>> > not a disproof of it.
>>
>> Well, then there should be a number between 1 and 8, or 00 and 08 where
>> you miss the step.
>> Apparently it is the 0 step, given that you still don't understand
>> that my hypothesis is just classical digital mechanism. Classical
>> means I accept the excluded third principle.
>>
>> I think the confusion comes from the fact that I obtain platonist (in
>> Plato or Plotinus sense) conclusions. But the hypotheses are 100%
>> neutral or agnostic on this point. Like in Paris and Brussels you
>> still confuse the conclusion (admittedly startling) and the hypothesis.
>>
> How can a conlusion that the material world doesn't exist
> be neutrral about Platonism? If Platonism is false,
> the mathematical world doesn';t exist either. and
> there is nowhere for the UD to exist at all.
Again what existence means in this case ?
>> Show me a piece of text I have written, anywhere, which makes you
>> think so please,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >
>
Regards,
Quentin
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Fri Jul 31 2009 - 19:27:55 PDT