On 18 Aug, 15:21, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 12:14, Flammarion wrote:
> >> Each branch of math has its own notion of existence, and with comp,
> >> we
> >> have a lot choice, for the ontic part, but usually I take
> >> arithmetical existence, if only because this is taught in school, and
> >> its enough to justified the existence of the universal numbers, and
> >> either they dreams (if "yes doctor") or at least their discourse on
> >> their dreams (if you say no the doctor and decide to qualify those
> >> machines are "inexistent zombies").
> > Platonism is not taught in schools. You are conflatin
> > existence with truth
> Platonism is not taught in schools, I agree. But I have never said that.
> I am not conflating existence with truth, I am conflating mathematical
> existence with truth of existential arithmetical statements.
You have to be doing more than that, because
you cannot agree with me that mathematical "existence"
is no existence at all.
> > mathematical stucture+matter gives you more to
> > tackle the consciousness problem with than mathematical structure
> > alone
> The mind-body problem comes from the fact that we have not yet find
> how to attach consciousness to matter.
No, it comes from no being able to attach *phenomenal*
consciousness to mathematical structures. There is no problem
attaching *cognition* to matter at all. If the matter of your brain
is disrupted, so are your though processes.
>At least with comp, after UDA,
> we know why.
> > No. it is equivalent to the conjunction of that stament with
> > "and the mathematicians Ex is a claim of ontological existence".
> You are the one making that addition. So, again, show where in the
> reasoning I would use that addition.
Where you want me to be running on a UD. I cannot be running on a
merely conceptual UD any more than I can be a character in fiction.
> >> If you really believe that the number 7 has no existence at all, then
> >> the UDA reasoning does not go through,
> > at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Read or reread the SANE paper, I explicitly assume Arithmetical
Then you are explicitly *not* assuming standard computaitonalism
>This is hardly new. I really don't follow you.
> UDA is an argument showing that comp (yes doctor + CT) => non
> physicalism. (CT = Church thesis)
The sane paper says
"Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism,
or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-
You mentioned two. The third is AR/Platonism
> A weaker version of CT is provably equivalent with Ex(x = universal
> number). It makes no sense without AR.
All mathematics makes sense without Platonism. You are
conflating truth and existence again. Ex(x = universal number)
can be true without x being RITSIAR
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at