On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:

>> You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not
>> invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
> "Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
> machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate [the
> pain I feel at space-time (x,t)] to a type or a sheaf of computations
> (existing forever in the arithmetical Platonia which is accepted as
> existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism). "

This is in the eight step.

I don't know which game you are playing, Peter, you never address the  

I have no clue what you mean by an immaterial UD, or actual existing  
I believe that to say yes to someone who will replace my brain by a  
digital machine, in this in the sense of believing that it is the  
computation that matter at some level, I have to trust a minimal  
amount of computer science.

If you agree that the proof of the existence of two irrational numbers  
such that x^y is rational does provide information, then by MG  
Argument you may understand the point or find a flaw, fatal or not.  
Who knows?

I think you agree that dreamy-consciousness can supervene on the  
physical laser-boolean graph activity. Does dreamy-consciousness  
supervenes on the movie of the laser-boolean graph activity?



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