On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?
Computaionalism or Bruno's comp?
We have already discussed this. Comp, as I use it, is a much weaker
hypothesis than most forms of CTM,
!!!!
?
given that comp allows the
substitution level to be arbitrarily low, and is based on the notion
of generalized brain. So comp's logical consequences are
automatically
lifted on all forms of CTM, which presuppose some high subst. level.
Now comp makes almost all (not any) UMs' physics identical.
That is not a weak assumption. In CTM, there is just physics, not
one physics for each UTM,
?
That's exactly what I am saying above.
and
there is a physical hardware platform at level 0.
A level 0 that nobody has ever seen, nor even defined or use in
physics. And which comp shows to be the bullet preventing progress in
fundamental cognitive science.
Computationalism is just epistemologically incompatible with
materialism (weak materialism).
According to a string of controversial arguments.
You have already acknowledge that there is no error in UDA1-7, and
when I asked you about the UDA-8 (MGA), you did not mention an error,
but make a confession of faith in Primitive Matter instead. Then I
asked you to define it, and I am still waiting for a reply making sense.
Not according
to computationalists, 99% of whom have have never questioned computers
and brains are
made of matter.
Give me definition and proof. Physicists acknowledge the fuzziness of
the notion of matter, even with the MWI, even more with any candidate
for marrying GR and QM.
It is true that almost all computationalist philosophers believe in
matter, but they are unaware of both computer science and of the UDA
reasoning. They are just following Aristotle metaphysics, which is
itself a regression to the pre-platonist time, which extrapolated
naturally from our animal sensations and survival programs or engrams.
Anyway, argument of majority have zero value in science.
It will be simpler for you to find a flaw in MGA than trying to define
matter, I think.
I thought you did eventually grasp the point. Please make yours
clearer. If you have a precise physicalist theory compatible with comp
you should be able to find an invalid step in UDA.
Bruno
We could say that comp makes the
notion of primitive matter supernatural.
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
.
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.
