Le 17-juin-07, à 18:28, David Nyman a écrit :

> IMHO this semantic model gives you a knock-down argument against
> 'computationalism', *unless* one identifies (I'm hoping to hear from
> Bruno on this) the 'primitive' entities and operators with those of
> the number realm - i.e. you make numbers and their relationships the
> 'primitive base'.  But crucially, you must still take these entities
> and their relationships to be the *real* basis of personal-world
> 'grasp'.  If you continue to adopt a 'somethingist' view, then no
> 'program' (i.e. one of the arbitrarily large set that could be imputed
> to any 'something') could coherently be responsible for its personal-
> world grasp (such as it may be).  This is the substance of the UDA
> argument.  All personal-worlds must emerge internally via recursive
> levels of relationship inherited from primitive grasp: in a
> 'somethingist' view, such grasp must reside with a primitive
> 'something', as we have seen, and in a computationalist view, it must
> reside in the number realm.  But the fundamental insight applies.

I agree completely, but I am not yet convinced that you appreciate my 
methodological way of proceeding. I have to ask you questions, but I 
see you have been prolific during the Siena congress, which is not 
gentle for my mailbox :). Anyway I will take some time to read yours' 
and the others' posts before asking for questions that others have 
perhaps asked and that you have perhaps already answered.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to