On 19 Aug, 09:36, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bruno's position is that only one of the above can be true (i.e. CTM
> > and PM are incompatible) as shown by UDA-8 (MGA/Olympia). I've also
> > argued this, in a somewhat different form. Peter's position I think
> > is that 1) and 2) are both false (or in any case that CTM and PM are
> > compatible). Hence the validity of UDA-8 - in its strongest form -
> > seems central to the current dispute, since it is essentially this
> > argument that motivates the appeal to arithmetical realism, the topic
> > currently generating so much heat. UDA-8 sets out to be provable or
> > disprovable on purely logical grounds.
> >I for one am unclear on what
> > basis it could be attacked as invalid. Can anyone show strong grounds
> > for this?
> Of course, no argument can validly come to a metaphysical conclusion--
> in this
> case, that matter does not exist --without making a single
> metaphysical assumption.
> The argument is therefore invalid, or not purely logical
Again, with respect, you appear to assume that MGA argues that matter
doesn't exist. In fact it argues that CTM + PM = false, which is not
the same thing at all. It is possible to retain matter as primitive
(which I for one don't rule out, dependent on a more complete
understanding of mind-body) whilst relinquishing an a priori CTM.
What would be needed, as I've said elsewhere, would be an alternative
theory of mind which - like any other 'transcendent' a posteriori
analysis - would be capable of direct elucidation in terms of of
primary physical processes. Bruno has argued separately against the
plausibility of finding such a theory, but this isn't implicit in MGA,
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