Re: Emulation and Stuff

From: Flammarion <>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT)

On 18 Aug, 15:21, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 12:14, Flammarion wrote:
> >> Each branch of math has its own notion of existence, and with comp,  
> >> we
> >> have a lot  choice, for the ontic part, but usually I take
> >> arithmetical existence, if only because this is taught in school, and
> >> its enough to justified the existence of the universal numbers, and
> >> either they dreams (if "yes doctor") or at least their discourse on
> >> their dreams (if you say no the doctor and decide to qualify those
> >> machines are "inexistent zombies").
> > Platonism is not taught in schools. You are conflatin
> > existence with truth
> Platonism is not taught in schools, I agree. But I have never said that.
> I am not conflating existence with truth, I am conflating mathematical  
> existence with truth of existential arithmetical statements.

You have to be doing more than that, because
you cannot agree with me that mathematical "existence"
is no existence at all.

> > mathematical stucture+matter gives you more to
> > tackle the consciousness problem with than mathematical structure
> > alone
> The mind-body problem comes from the fact that we have not yet find  
> how to attach consciousness to matter.

No, it comes from no being able to attach *phenomenal*
consciousness to mathematical structures. There is no problem
attaching *cognition* to matter at all. If the matter of your brain
is disrupted, so are your though processes.

>At least with comp, after UDA,  
> we know why.

> > No. it is equivalent to the conjunction of that stament with
> > "and the mathematicians Ex is a claim of ontological existence".
> You are the one making that addition. So, again, show where in the  
> reasoning I would use that addition.

Where you want me to be running on a UD. I cannot be running on a
merely conceptual UD any more than I can be a character in fiction.

> >> If you really believe that the number 07 has no existence at all, then
> >> the UDA reasoning does not go through,
> > at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Read or reread the SANE paper, I explicitly assume Arithmetical  
> Realism.

Then you are explicitly *not* assuming standard computaitonalism

>This is hardly new. I really don't follow you.
> UDA is an argument showing that comp (yes doctor + CT) => non  
> physicalism.  (CT = Church thesis)

The sane paper says

"Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism,
or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-
hypotheses: "

You mentioned two. The third is AR/Platonism

> A weaker version of CT is provably equivalent with Ex(x = universal  
> number). It makes no sense without AR.

All mathematics makes sense without Platonism. You are
conflating truth and existence again. Ex(x = universal number)
can be true without x being RITSIAR

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Aug 18 2009 - 14:32:50 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST