On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 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.
Pattern recognition is the private presentation of experience. It has no
further definition because it is an ontological primitive. Arithmetic adds
an expectation of reliability and precision to that fundamental nature, but
reliability and precision are also private presentations of experience as
well. Certainly the capacity to experience the pattern of wetness or
dizzyness need not supervene on any arithmetic basis.
> 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.
I start from the recognition that what people agree on, or think they agree
on, is also intuition. You start by overlooking the intuition behind the
initial agreements on what are actually complex intellectual products of
human civilization. Your intuition is that these products, because of their
seeming universality and circular validation of themselves, are a potential
replacement for the conscious reasoning which has
invented/discovered/refined them. I see that as clearly a confirmation bias
amplified by selective disqualification.
> If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
> derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist is
if arithmetic is irreducible? Okay, prove that.
> 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.
I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing or
understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive sensory-motor
experiences. Addition and multiplication are not literal phenomena, rather
they are analytical descriptions and interpretations of phenomena which are
either bodies in space, experiences through time, or combinations and
continuations thereof. To get to addition, you need to have an experience
of counting, of memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary
coherence and multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and
representation...so many things... I have repeated this several times, why
do you act as if I have been silent on this point?
> > 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?
Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin air?
> > 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.
It's not sad if I'm right. To me it's sad that we are seriously considering
that machines could generate thinking based on nothing but superficial
correspondences to behavior, especially when we know specifically that
behavior and consciousness are not directly correlated.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at