2009/7/31 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
> 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
I don't understand what could be "mathematically existence" ? What is
"existence" ? RITSIAR is a point of view (of an observer)... If
something exists, it exists...
You're using "mathematical existence" as if it meant "no existence"...
why bother using existence at all then ?
>> > 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.
Again what existence means in this case ?
>> Show me a piece of text I have written, anywhere, which makes you
>> think so please,
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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