I speculated about my problems why I follow your (and
others') expressions with difficulty. I was capable to
understand concepts in diverse sciences and now I have
to reflect about fitting 'comp', 'UDA', 'YesDoctor',
even 'arithmetical Plationism' etc. into the flowing
considerations. Your remark:
>... arithmetical truth is 
> not a personal construction....<
made me muse: is it a Ding an sich? a god? together
with your absolutistic fundamental 'number' concept it
echoes in my mind how reasonable I found David Bohm's
words: "there are no numbers in nature, they are human
inventions" with a rebuff at another list: Are "WE"
not parts of nature? if numbers exist in our mind, are
they not "IN" nature? ...
I found both the con and pro reasonable. To combine it
with your quoted above statement - which I find no
less reasonable - I 'tasted' the "personal" vs. the
Add to that your undebatable "non-solipsistic" as well

NOBODY constructs 'arithmetical truth' or 'numbers', 
yet both are evolutionary features in recent human
intellect (2-3millennia). To mediate on my dichotomy:
I may have a mental resistance in the way of absorbing
comp etc.  because I think (new idea, so far not
surfaced in my mind) "nature" (whatever, existence,
wholeness, everything or else) is analogue and at the
present evolutionary epistemic level we reached the
digital logic and thinking, which is a simpler way in
its abrupt quantization than the all-encompassing
comparative analoguization. 

I cannot think "analogue-ly", such computers are in
dreamland and we only have vague notions about it, as
e.g. the famous: "qualitative is 'bad' quantitative". 
I like to reverse it: a further evolved "less
quantitative (sort of analogue) will include wider
aspects than included within the limited quanti models
and provide more insight in a 'more dimensional' (not
meant as a coordinating axis) analogue view...

Such (subconscious?) inhibitions might have prevented
me of staying with your iridia (in the English version
- my 5th language) or in the better explanatory French
version, which language I follow even much poorer. 
The fact that WE evolved into an understanding in the
course of human mental development in which things are
'counted' more than just: 1,2,many - is a beginning.  
"We" (=humanity) absorbed this mentality as we did the
reductionist ways of thinking, the mystique (nobody
"personally" invented the religions) the care for the
offsprings, or a regular breath-taking. Yet I
contemplate in my wholistic views a wider horizon way,
close to what we call analogue today, which the
digital logic has yet to attain. The 'next' level of
Maybe oriental thinking is closer to the analogue,
because they learn math 101 not digitally as our kids,
but pushing 'groups' of beads on the abacus - giving
some analogue image of the changing groups to start

This is not a criticism of western math skills, not an
argument against the Plato to Bruno line, it is an
idea and I don't intend to persuade anybody to
(Allegedly the early computer-based anti-aircraft gun
aiming device of the Bofors Swedish product (WWII,
sold for the Germans) - before Turing got widely known
- was NOT digitally operated. I don't know about it,
but I heard that it worked by 'image-patterns' and
anticipated the moves of the airplane. Somebody may
know more about it).

With unlimited analogous regards

John Mikes 

--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Le 06-juil.-06, � 23:32, 1Z a �crit :
> >
> > 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
> > "comp".
> 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.
> Bruno

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to