On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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 mean exactly what you mean by "existing forever in the arithmetical
Platonia which is accepted as
existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism"
> 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?
How do you get from providing information to an immaterial UD?
> 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?
I don't beleive it supervenes on causally-disconnected frames, no.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at