Le 12-juil.-06, à 02:11, Brent Meeker a écrit :

BM (Bruno):
>> For the same reason they are far more Christians than Buddhist. And
>> none of your materialist even try to define matter. They take it for
>> granted, following mainly Aristotle. Almost all materialist react by
>> knocking a table when they want me to realize matter exists.

BM (Brent):
> But that is consistent.  You assume arithmetic is real and so you seek 
> an arithmetical definition of
> matter.



or better an arithmetical justification why machines believes (in some 
local correct and stable way) in the appearance of empirical 
stability/matter.
I doubt that word like "matter"  or "consciousness" or "god" can be 
"third person" defined at all.




> A scientists assume the matter gives an operational definition, e.g. 
> as Vic Stenger does:
> matter is what kicks back when you kick it.


Deutsch uses this to explain "objectivity", and argues, with such a 
criteria due to Johnson, that math is objective. Perhaps some 
materialist use this to define matter but then there need to define 
"kicking back", and thus interaction, etc.




> You cannot criticize people who don't believe in
> Platonia for giving non-platonic definitions.


They believe in Platonia in the sense we use the words in the list 
since years. Once again, all what I say is that the belief that you can 
survive with  a digital brain (material or not) entails the total lack 
of explanative power of any notion of primary matter.
 From a pure logical point of view, a materialist who believes in comp 
can still believe in "primitive matter", but he cannot use it in any 
account of a "material sensation". Primary matter is devoid of any 
explanation power. It is perhaps the last form of ether or phlogiston 
...
It would be false modesty on my part to harbor doubt about my 
derivation. Also, it has been verified by many many people now, and 
although systematic error are possible, I am on the path to make a 
paper corresponding to my thesis along with the new development both 
mathematical, and then "plotinian".
The result is highly not obvious after 1500 of Aristotelianism,  but  
it has been intuited by many during one millennium of greek rational 
theology. See also Descartes who, imo, already annonced the coming back 
of the platonician and the "rational mystics"  (called theoretician by 
the greeks).

Bruno

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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to