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,
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at