On 16 Nov 2008, at 11:20, Kory Heath wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2008, at 5:22 PM, m.a. wrote:
>> Isn't some sort of substrate necessary for any mathematical event,  
>> whether it be a brain or a screen or a universe? And isn't that  
>> substrate sufficiently different from the math to be called  
>> physical existence?
> That's certainly the prevailing intuition. My position is that that  
> intuition is incorrect, and that it bears a deep similarity to the  
> (once prevailing) vitalist's intuition that some kind of "life  
> force", sufficiently different than inanimate matter, is necessary  
> for life.
> I'm arguing that mathematical facts-of-the-matter all by themselves  
> fulfill the requirements that the materialist's substrate is  
> supposed to fulfill. The materialists disagree, but then the burden  
> is on them to explain exactly what qualities this substrate needs to  
> have, and why mathematical facts-of-the-matter don't fit the bill.  
> I've never heard a non-question-begging response. What I've heard a  
> lot of is, "Mathematical facts-of-the-matter just aren't the kinds  
> of things that can count as a physical substrate." But that's just a  
> restatement of the position that needs to be defended.
> When the materialists try to describe what kind of thing *would* fit  
> the bill, I find the descriptions as confusing as the vitalist's  
> descriptions of the life-force.

I agree 99% with you, and I have myself in my papers and in this list  
compared very often "materialism" with "vitalism". In generally I do  
that after the seventh step of the UDA. At that step people should  
understand that, in case a concrete UD is executed integrally  
(infinite task) in our material universe, then,  to predict what a pen  
will do if we drop it, we have to look at the entire set of possible  
computations going through our current state (when in from of that  
pen) OK?

Now, are you aware that the MGA is just an argument to logically show  
that the material invocation, cannot indeed be used to contradict of  
weaken the consequence of those 7 steps?

No need (for you!) of MGA, if you have already the (correct) intuition  
that using materialism just cannot work. The use of matter is indeed  
akin to the (fraudulous) use of God for explaining the existence of  
the universe. That explain nothing. But we do have a very strong  
intuition that matter does exist, and it is not so simple (and indeed  
quite subtle) to precisely show that primitive or fundamental matter  
is a red herring both for the mind and the body part of the mind-body  
problem. OK?

I will begin by a step 0, for the MGA, where I sum up what should be  
completely clear before beginning the MGA itself. I have also to  
explain what the MGA does not. For example the MGA does not prove the  
inexistence of matter, it proves only to irrelevance of the notion of  
matter concerning again both mind and body, consciousness and physics.



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