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

## Advertising

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 Kingwrote:On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:> That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is inthe> mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or somekind> of underlying conputation)Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basicarithmetic takes some work).Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuumof distance.In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bitexhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth. Youare unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problemfor 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 patternrecognition,

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 materialrealism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation ofother private representations, it has no public existence which isindependent of sense,

Assuming what?

nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise toany form of sense were they hypothetically able to existindependently 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.