Thanks.

How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence 
hypothesis fit or not fit into this?

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion, 
> which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with 
> Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which 
> can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist 
> hypothesis in the cognitive science.
>
> In a nutshell, it is the problem of how a qualitative experiential 
> feeling of consciousness can be associated with third personal object 
> relations. How a grey brain makes us feel color, if you want. And then 
> it touches question like "does consciousness have a role?", "is there 
> a first person death", etc.
>
> You can Google on it on the web, but in this list we are far in advance :)
>
> Most people still believe simultaneously in MECHANISM, and WEAK 
> MATERIALISM (the idea that stuffy matter exists). My point is that 
> iMECHANISM and MATERIALISM (or PHYSICALISM) are epistemologically 
> incompatible. Mech + Mater. leads to person eliminativism. Mech itself 
> leads, by UDA, to a material appearance emerging from infinite sum of 
> purely mathematical computations. UDA shows that computationalism 
> leads to refutable facts, and one of my main point is that 
> computationalism (or digital mechanism) is empirically testable, and 
> indeed confirmed (not proved!) in his most startling features by 
> quantum mechanics. Digitalism makes the mind-body problem a throughly 
> scientific problem. It is the least I want to show.
>
> Read the paper here if you want save your time:
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
> <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>
>
> Those results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many 
> intuitions discussed in this list.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
>> I'm ignorant of what you mean by "mind body problem."  Can you 
>> explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not  
>>> aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he  
>>> is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory).
>>>
>>> The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his  
>>> unconscious use of the identity thesis in the "philosophy of  
>>> mind" (alias cognitive science).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
>>>> comments?
>>>>     
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>
>
>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to