On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/2/11 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > >> On 07 Feb 2011, at 23:58, 1Z wrote: > > > > >>> On Feb 7, 6:29 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > >>>> Peter, > > > > >>>> Everything is fine. You should understand the reasoning by using > > > >>>> only > > > >>>> the formal definition of "arithmetical realism", > > > > >>> You reasoning *cannot* be both valid and ontologically > > > >>> neutral because it has ontological conclusions. > > > > >> Wrong. > > > > > Wrong about what? > > > > You were wrong on the idea that an argument cannot be valid and > > > ontological. It is enough that the premises have ontological clauses. > > > So which is the ontological premise? You don't say > > that Platonism is an explicit premise. But it isn't > > a corollary of CT either. > > The ontological premise is that *you* could be replaced by *a digital brain* > in other word a program and still be you.
That just repeats the same ambiguity. Is the programe supposed to be physically instantiated as patterns of electrical charge in circuitry, or floating around in Plato's heaven. (As ever, the true claim that programmes are not tied to any particular instantiation does not mean they can exist without any physical instantiation at all) -- 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.
