Hi Bruno,

Thanks for your assent on this. I am sure that CT and AR are needed, at some point, for your really outrageous conclusions. But I am sure you agree that they cannot save them if the "Yes doctor" presumption can be shot down by itself. Right? This would save me from having to read through your Dovetail-Lob etc... argument which
is probably way above my head!

We obviously move in very different circles because I was taught by very stubborn old strong AI types and cognoscendi cognitivists and I have never heard anyone argue for something like that YD hypothesis! But as you have conceded no one needs it to defend the old-fashioned materialist functionalism credo that you (and I) do not subscribe to anyway.

But I will wait for your other comments.

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:48:35 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality

Hi Godfray,

I must leave my office, and I let you know just my first impression of your last post. First I hope you will accept my apologies for having skip unintentionally your demand for my hypotheses.

> I am saying this because I actually think that it is the real > interesting and original part of your proposal and it does not > need those two other huge "body guards" which I happen to be friends
with. OK?

I can say yes. Nevertheless, the "bodyguards" will appear necessary when you go through the reasoning at some point. Actually most computer scientist who does not want to abandon physicalism after the reading of my reasoning, does abandon comp under the form of abandoning the Arithmetical Realism (AR) part of it!
Few abandon the YES doctor part (curiously enough).
None, until now, abandon Church thesis, but it *is* a logical way out.
But I will comment more carefully your post tomorrow. I will just print it now.

A demain,



Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to