# Re: the curse of materialism

On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the > mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind
> of underlying conputation)

Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why 3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic arithmetic takes some work).

Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum of distance.

In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth. You are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure "mathematics exists" make any sense to me.

I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear.

Of course.

My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern recognition,

Can you define "pattern recognition" without arithmetic or equivalent?
I doubt.

We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on, like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this. But you start from your intuition.

If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and multiplication in the sense I would wait for.

which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of other private representations, it has no public existence which is independent of sense,

Assuming what?

nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist independently of sense.

Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that.

In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this. It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine cannot support thinking.

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