On 23 May 2012, at 02:54, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/22/2012 4:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2012/5/22 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>

No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any particular as primitive, even if it is quantity itself, for to do such is to violate the very notion of neutrality itself. You might like to spend some time reading Spinoza and Bertrand Russell's discussions of this. I did not invent this line of reasoning.

Neutral monism, in philosophy, is the metaphysical view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral," that is, neither physical nor mental.

I don't see how taking N,+,* as primitive is not neutral monism. It is neither physical nor mental.

If mathematical "objects" are not within the category of Mental then that is news to philosophers...

even more perplexing to me; how is it that the Integers are given such special status,

Because of "digital" in digital mechanism. It is not so much an emphasis on numbers, than on finite.

So how do you justify finiteness? I have been accused of having the "everything disease" whose symptom is "the inability to conceive anything but infinite, ill defined ensembles", but in my defense I must state that what I am conceiving is an over- abundance of very precisely defined ensembles. My disease is the inability to properly articulate a written description.

especially when we cast aside all possibility (within our ontology) of the "reality" of the physical world?

Not at all. Only "primitively physical" reality is put in doubt.

Not me. I already came to the conclusion that reality cannot be primitively physical.

You are unclear on what you posit. You always came back to the "physical reality" point, so I don't know what more to say... either you agree physical reality is not ontologically primitive or you don't, there's no in between position.

We have to start at the physical reality that we individually experience, it is, aside from our awareness, the most "real" thing we have to stand upon philosophically. From there we venture out in our speculations as to our ontology. cosmogony and epistemology. is there an alternative?

Without the physical world to act as a "selection" mechanism for what is "Real",

This contradicts your neutral monism.

No, it does not. Please see my discussion of neutral monism above.

Yes it does, reading you, you posit a physical material reality as primitive, which is not neutral...

No, I posit the physical and the mental as "real" in the sense that I am experiencing them.

The physical world is a model. It's a very good model and I like it, but like any model you can't *know* whether it's really real or not. Bruno's model explains some things the physical model doesn't, but so far it doesn't seem to have the predictive power that the physical model does.

Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp "model" (theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the whole of physics, and the whole of what that physics predicts (and this without mentioning that it predicts the whole qualia part too, unlike the "physics model"). But it does it in a very more difficult way, without "copying on nature".

Of course it might be false. It might be that comp leads to a different mass for the electron or to the non existence of electrons. But comp, together with some definition of knowledge, predicts physics quantitatively and qualitatively.

Of course to use comp to predict an eclipse is not yet in its range, if it can ever be. To use comp for this, would be like using string theory to prepare a cup of tea. But the goal is not to do physics, just to formulate the mind-body problem, and figure out the less wrong bigger picture.


Telescoping out to the farthest point of abstraction we have ideas like Bruno's. I guess that I need to draw some diagrams...

why the bias for integers?

Because comp = machine, and machine are supposed to be of the type "finitely describable".

This is true only after the possibility of determining differences is stipulated. One cannot assume a neutral monism that stipulates a non-neutral stance, to do so it a contradiction.

Computationalism is the theory that your consciousness can be emulated on a turing machine, a program is a finite object and can be described by an integer. I don't see a contradiction.

I am with Penrose in claiming that consciousness is not emulable by a finite machine.

It's instantiated by brains which are empirically finite. Penrose's argument from Godelian incompleteness is fallacious.

This has been a question that I have tried to get answered to no avail.

You don't listen. This has been repeated very often. When you say "yes" to the doctor, you accept that you survive with a computer executing a code. A code is mainly a natural number, up to computable isomorphism. Comp refers to computer science, which study the computable function, which can always be recasted in term of computable function from N to N. And there are no other theory of computability, on reals or whatever, or if you prefer, there are too many, without any Church thesis or genuine universality notion. (Cf Pour-Hel, Blum Shub and Smale, etc.)

I do listen and read as well. Now it is your turn. The entire theory of computation rests upon the ability to distinguish quantity from non-quantity, even to the point of the possibility of the act of making a distinction. When you propose a primitive ground that assumes a prior distinction and negates the prior act that generated the result, you are demanding the belief in fiat acts. This is familiar to me from my childhood days of sitting in the pew of my father's church. It is an act of blind faith, not evidence based science. Please stop pretending otherwise.

"evidence based science" ??

Yes, like not rejecting the physical necessity involved in a computation. I reject Platonism on these grounds; it is anti- empirical.

But it wouldn't be if it made some risky predictions which we found to be true.


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 .


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to