On 18 Aug, 09:12, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote:

> >> So you reject arithmetical realism, and thus you reject comp.
> > The computaitonal Theory of Mind has no implications about Platonism.
> Comp is based on the notion of digitalness, which needs Church thesis.
> I will explain in detail why Church thesis needs arithmetical realism.
> I think that you are confusing everyone by switching "arithmetical
> realism" with "Platonism". If you call "Platonism" what I call
> "Arithmetical realism", I will put the result in the following way:
> comp => non physicalism. It leads to a reduction of the mind-body
> problem to the search of an explanation of stable beliefs in matter,
> without matter. AUDA provides the explanation, yet not the physical
> theory (but still the logic of physical propositions). It explains the
> appearance of "many worlds" below the substitution level.

The computaitonal Theory of Mind still has no implications about
As for "comp", that is another question...

> > You may of course mean something else by "comp".....
> >> Arithmetical realism is needed to give a sense to Church thesis,
> >> which
> >> is part of comp.
> > if AR is as claim abotu the immateial existence of numbers it does
> > not.
> > Not even remotely.
> AR is a claim that number exists independently of my body and soul.
> Number are immaterial, by definition.

So are ghosts and angels

> You don't need a theory of
> matter to explain what numbers are. On the contrary, all book which
> talk on matter assumes them more or less explicitly.

It doesn't take them as actually existent. Maths is used as
a language. English is used a langauge. English words
do not have immaterial existence in some heaven.

> >> Some posts ago, you seem to accept arithmetical realism, so I am no
> >> more sure of your position.
> > I may have assented to the *truth* of some propositions...
> > but truth is not existence. At least, the claim that
> > truth=existence is extraordinary and metaphysical...
> Mathematical existence = truth of existential mathematical statement.

existential mathematical statement="existence" used in fictive sense,
like "Hobbits exist
in Middle Earth"

> The number seven exists independently of me, is equivalent with the
> statement that the truth of the mathematical statement Ex(x =
> s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) is true independently of me.

No. it is equivalent to the conjunction of that stament with
"and the mathematicians Ex is a claim of ontological existence".

> If you really believe that the number 7 has no existence at all, then
> the UDA reasoning does not go through,

at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>but then you are abandoning
> comp because you can no more give sense to digitalness.

I am not abandoning the Computational Theory of Mind
because I can give a Quinean physical paraphrase of
computation. As for "comp", that is another question....

>You can still
> say "yes" to a doctor, but you have to refer to some analog material
> object, and not accept that you survive "qua computatio". This plays a
> role in step-8.

Exactly. The materialist computationalist says yes to being
on a physical computer, and no to magic beans.
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to