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 point. I have no clue what you mean by an immaterial UD, or actual existing numbers. 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? 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
