Dear Bruno, allow me to interleave below as [JM]: remarks.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:13 AM
  Subject: Re: Speaking about "Mathematicalism"

  Le 09-avr.-07, à 16:40, John M a écrit :

    I am weary about the view of 'computationalism' based on that emryonic 
binaryly digital toy we used yesterday. I let my tech.  immagination wander and 
think about analog computers dealing in meanings and functions rather than bits 
0 or 1. 

    But there is no universal analog computers. Analog machines can be made 
universal by making them able to compute the "sinus" function, but this is a 
way to implement a digital universal machine in an analog one. 
    And then why would real "analog machine" be more able able to deal with 
meaning and functions?

    [JM]: I am not talking about 'analogizing' the digital kraxlwerk. I am 
REALLY referring to a NEW incention (discovery), like the digital computer was 
originally, dealing with some contraption of comparing - handling concepts, 
functions, meanings, ideas.I agree: it is beyond our today's level of 
reality(!). I do not believe that the digital-comp select analoguizing function 
can be universalized. I am talking about a principally different action of the 
future in spe. Free idea (your 'science').
    In such sense
    SUCH 'physical 'COMPUTER' will run a conscious program, 

  Why? You talk like if it was obvious that consciousness is related with 
actual third person real numbers (analog object)? At least comp explains 
completely why consciousness is related to real numbers, but only from the 
first person perspective. This is coherent with the fact that consciousness is 
a first person notion.

  When I formulate my thoughts I do not start from 'numbers', real, Godel or 
not. Math comes in my thoughts as PART of a world - whether such world exists 
or not - and not vice versa.
  So far I did not get a satisfactory argument from 'outside the 
numbers-started image' why the elusive numbers should be responsible for all 
change and activity. Hence my number=god. 
  Ref: your next remark.

    not a mechanisedly 'consciousified' digital program.

  John, with all my friendly respect, I think you miss the impact of Godel's 
theorem. Somehow, we know (provably so with the comp assumption) that we don't 
know what numbers or machines are capable of.

  But ok, you are just arguing for the non-comp assumption. I have nothing 
against it, unless you pretend that the mind-body problem would be easier to 
solve in such frame. it is actually not the case. 

  [JM]: WHAT mind-body problem? the fiction of 'matter' as body upon the 
unidentified ideational existence? Making the essence dependent from the 
consequentially drawn-up physical world?

  Adding third person infinities makes things more complex, and in general such 
moves are used to hide the problem instead of solving it or even just better 
formulating it.
  [JM]: your problem when starting from the math-concept

    If called 'computer' at all, it is a tool. Call it 'god' and you are out.
    I cannot blame Peter to be stubborn in "that's we have, (rather: see), 
that's we love" pragmatism. I am irresponsible enough to allow speculative 
conditional fantasy.

  That's my definition of science. Speculative conditional fantasy. Even Grand 
Mother physics, with theories like "the sun will rise tomorrow", become 
scientific only when grandmother adds "let's hope".

  All theories are hypothetical, even the implicit theories our brain supports 
since million years. Of course those theories are more difficult to put in 
doubt. But science appears when people have been able to take distance with 
such "obvious truth", like the primacy of the material world.
  [JM]: thanks for the consentual formulating.

    Of course only into my 'narrative'. But IMO advancement needs a free 
unrestricted mind and includes fantastic ideas.

  OK. But not if those fantastic ideas are used to burry problems instead of 
formulating them or solving them. It could perhaps be arguable that fantastic 
ideas like "God" or its dual idea "Matter" have been used since a long time to 
bury the initial deep questioning.
  [JM]: only if one starts from your 'beginning'. 
  My narrative is immune to such difficulties - of course I have no complete 

    Right or wrong. And of course I am not certain myself.

  That is the best I wish you ...


  [JM]: thanks for the response



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.2.0/756 - Release Date: 4/10/2007 
10:44 PM

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