2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer <laserma...@hotmail.com>:

>> > >> I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation is "a
>> > >> physical process taking place in brains and computer hardware".  The
>> > >> paraphrase argument - the one you said you agreed with - asserts that
>> > >> *any* human concept is *eliminable*
>> >
>> > > No, reducible, not eliminable. That is an important distinction.
>> >
>> > Not in this instance.  The whole thrust of the paraphrase argument is
>> > precisely to show - in principle at least - that the reduced concept
>> > can be *eliminated* from the explanation.  You can do this with
>> > 'life', so you should be prepared to do it with 'computation'.
>>
>> Showing that a word can be removed from a verbal formulation
>> by substitution with s synonym is not *ontological* elimination.
>
> Of course it is--*according to the Quinean definition of ontology*. The
> strange thing about your mode of argument is that you talk as though a word
> like "existence" has some single true correct meaning, and that anyone who
> uses it differently is just wrong--do you disagree with the basic premise
> that the meaning of words is defined solely by usage and/or definitions? If
> so, do you agree that there are in fact different ways this word is defined
> by real people, even if we restrict our attention to the philosophical
> community?
> Provided you agree with that, your posts would be a lot less confusing if
> you would distinguish between different definitions and state which one you
> meant at a given time--for example, one might say "I agree numbers have
> Quinean existence but I think they lack material existence, or
> existence in the sense that intelligent beings that appear in mathematical
> universes are actually conscious beings
> with their own qualia". We might call these three notions of existence
> Q-existence, M-existence and C-existence for short. My argument with you has
> been that even if one wishes to postulate a single universe, M-existence is
> an unnecessary middleman and doesn't even seem well-defined, all we need to
> do is postulate that out of all the mathematically possible universes that
> have Q-existence, only one has C-existence.

So someone else noticed Peter dodging the consequences of what he
originally claimed with respect to Quinean paraphrase!  Thanks.

David

> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to