On 02 Aug 2011, at 03:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 1, 4:31 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
I believe that babbage machine, if terminated, can run a program
capable to see a larger spectrum than us.
Why do you, or why should I believe that though?
Well, it is a consequence of digital mechanism, alias
It seems like circular reasoning to me. If you believe in comp, then
you believe math can have human experiences.
Not at all. Comp is just the doctrine according to which you can
survive with a digital brain. This is neutral with respect to
materialism. It is a non trivial consequence that comp leads to the
abandon of the physical supervenience thesis.
I ask why I should
believe that, and you say that comp compels the belief.
That is all what UDA is about, besides indeterminacy, non locality,
non-cloning. Some people accept immateriality at the step seven, and
others opt for a ultrafinitist physicalism. The step 8 shows that
ultrafinitist physicalism is a red hearing.
I don't ask you to take my word. Study, and you will understand, or
perhaps find a weakness. To be honest and precise, there is still one
point which I think must be made more precise, which is that comp
implies the 323-principle. It says that if, for some particular
computation, consciousness supervenes (physically) on a computer which
does not use the register 323, then consciousness supervenes
(physically) on that 'same' computation on the computer from which the
323 register has been removed. The reason why this is true is that by
relaxing the notion of physics to include genuine *such*
counterfactuals prevent you to say "yes" to the doctor for
computationalist reason. It is again a magical move. This is what
makes obligatory to explain the physical reality by universal number's
dream relative measure.
We explain, or try to explain, the complex (matter, mind, gods and
goddesses, and all that) from the simple principles on which many
agree, like addition and multiplication.
That's what I'm doing. Sensorimotive experience is clearly simpler
than addition and multiplication to me,
To you, perhaps. It is your work to make it simpler for us.
and with my hypothesis, it can
be seen that this experiential principle may very well be universal.
I don't approach questions in terms of syntactic architecture. I'm
starting with nothing and adding only what appears to be necessary
understanding the cosmos without leaving out anything important
life, consciousness, subjectivity).
I have no doubt you try to understand something, but you seems to
no idea of what is a scientific approach, to be frank.
We always try to assume the less, derive things, and compare with
Even more than always trying to do particular things, a scientific
approach should not always do what it always does. You can do both. I
have a clear vision of how these phenomena fit together and I think it
makes sense. I feel that it's up to others to test it in whatever way
You have to be a billions times more precise I'm afraid.
From what I (hardly) understand of your approach, you bury the Mind-
Body problem in an infinitely low substitution level.
To me, otherwise knows as solving the Mind-Body problem.
At least you
acknowledge that you have to say "no" to the doctor, and that *is*
your right. beware the crazy doctor (pro-life like) who might not ask
for your opinion.
I'd go to the doctor that has had alternate halves of his brain
replaced for a year each.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at