On 01 Sep 2009, at 13:26, David Nyman wrote:

> Bruno hasn't
> yet persuaded me that an explicitly non-computational theory of mind
> on some such basis is actually untenable.


I don't think I have ever said that.

All what I propose is a (constructive) proof of the following  
equivalent propositions:

-  CTM implies physics is a branch of computer science (alias machine  
theology, number theory, etc...)
-   CTM & Physicalism entails (constructively) that 0 = 1
-  Physicalism entails that any theory of mind should rely on actual  
big infinities

The proof is constructive: CTM implies that physics, in all its  
precision, can be found in this way ..... (self-reference logic, etc.).

But the proof can be indeed weakened. We have still the reversal with  
transfinite weakening of comp. Hypermachine, oracles, etc. does not  
change the result. To keep physicalism intact we need a mind close to  
being, not a god, but *the * God, if that is not inconsistent. Who  
knows? In that case, comp, or CTM, is false.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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