## Advertising

On 31 July, 14:57, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 31 Jul 2009, at 12:43, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On 31 July, 10:03, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:32, 1Z wrote (to David): > > >>> But you haven't said what the problem is in the emergence of the > >>> mental > >>> from the physical > > >> It is usually called the mind-body problem. There are many good book > >> on the subject. > > > There are many bad solutions too. Finding a good solution > > means having an exat grasp of the problem, not saying in some > > vague way that mind and matter are different things. > > I don't see to what you make allusion. > > > > >> My own work is partially a reformulation of that problem (and > >> partially a beginning of a solution), when taking Mechanism seriously > >> into account. > > >> Tell us which step in UDA you have a problem of understanding with. > >> Give us a number between 1 and 8, and a justification. OK? > > > I don't have a problem in understanding anything. I have a problem > > in granting Platonism. Without Platonism, there is no UDA "just > > there". > > I guess you mean that there is no universal dovetailer (UD) out there. > Who ever said that? I just say that the UD exists in the sense that > you can prove its existence in a tiny weak part of Arithmetic. If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical proofs only prove mathematical "existence", not onltolgical existence. For a non-Platonist , 23 "exists" mathematically, but is not RITSIAR. The same goes for the UD > > wihout a UDA there are no generated minds, without generated minds > > there is no illusory matter. > > Sure. But the UD exists, like prime number exists. Which for a non-Platononists is not at all in the relevant sense. > > At best you have an alternative to > > materalism-realism, > > not a disproof of it. > > Well, then there should be a number between 1 and 8, or 0 and 8 where > you miss the step. > Apparently it is the 0 step, given that you still don't understand > that my hypothesis is just classical digital mechanism. Classical > means I accept the excluded third principle. > > I think the confusion comes from the fact that I obtain platonist (in > Plato or Plotinus sense) conclusions. But the hypotheses are 100% > neutral or agnostic on this point. Like in Paris and Brussels you > still confuse the conclusion (admittedly startling) and the hypothesis. > How can a conlusion that the material world doesn't exist be neutrral about Platonism? If Platonism is false, the mathematical world doesn';t exist either. and there is nowhere for the UD to exist at all. > Show me a piece of text I have written, anywhere, which makes you > think so please, > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---