On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman <david.ny....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion <peterdjo....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is the point. I should say that my starting position
>>>> before encountering Bruno's views was against the tenability of
>>>> CTM on
>>>> the basis of any consistent notion of physical process. Bruno
>>>> hasn't
>>>> yet persuaded me that an explicitly non-computational theory of
>>>> mind
>>>> on some such basis is actually untenable. But he has awakened me
>>>> to
>>>> the reverse realisation that a non-materialist world-view can
>>>> tenably
>>>> be founded on CTM
>>
>>> coupled with Platonism.
>>
>> With respect, Peter, you continue to miss the point. What Bruno has
>> demonstrated is that CTM as a mind-body theory (which is what UDA-8
>> shows it must be) makes no ontological commitment *by its very
>> virtuality*. Or rather, any such commitment is shown to be vacuous.
>
> There's got to be somehting at the bottom of the stack. Bruno
> wants to substitue matetr with Platonia as the substrate.
> If there is nothing at the bottom
> of the stack, there are no virtualisations running higher up.
>
>> Consequently under CTM, one is committed to RITSIAR=virtual, not
>> RITSIAR=platonic.
>
> CTM only suggests that I *could* be virtualised. Alternatively
> I could be running on the metal. I do wish you guys would undertand
> that
> Possible X => actually X
> is a fallacy.
So you have a problem with the indexical approach of time, and space.
Of course it is the milk of the everything-list basic idea. And MGA,
certainly not just MGA, shows that comp entails the indexical
approach. Actually X is indeed just consistent X "as seen from inside".
>
>> Now, one obviously has the option *precisely in
>> virtue of this* to dismiss CTM as itself vacuous. But this is the
>> value of the insight: its force is to commit you to these explicit
>> choices, and hence to cease vacillating between incompatible
>> theoretical conjunctions.
>
> No incompatibility has been demonstrated.
Given the references to text and posts, we are still waiting a
justification of this statement.
A scientist would say: your going from this line to this line is
invalid for this reason.
B.
> >
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Sep 01 2009 - 17:32:00 PDT