Le 06-juil.-06, à 23:32, 1Z a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism.
> Your version does. Computationalism is standardly
> "the thesis that cognition is computation."
Could you define or explain "computation" without believing that the
relations among numbers are independent of you?
> In other words, your argument really has two premises -- AR and
> (standard) computationalism.
Standard comp, indeed, does not make AR explicit. But as Dennett and
others standard comp cognitivists agree on, comp needs Church thesis
(if only to be able to take into account negative limitative result),
and church thesis need AR. I just make this explicit, if only because I
got a sufficiently counter-intuitive result.
Remember that AR is just the presupposition that arithmetical truth is
not a personal construction. Put in anoher way, AR is just the non
solipsistic view of elementary math.
> You have bundled them together into
Just to make some point clearer. I have not yet met someone who does
not believe in AR. (I have met mathematicians who does not believe in
AR during the week-end, and I have met some philosopher who pretend not
believing in AR, but who does.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at