On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:



On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:



On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 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 .


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 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.

Reply via email to