On 07 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/7/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Math is ambiguous on that.

A priori, yes. But once we assume computationalism in cognitive science, then we can accept that when numbers, relatively to other numbers, behave in some ways (self-reference, etc.) they get mind, or at least some mind can be associate to them (and then on the infinity of them).

But this is very vague. Why should there be more than one mind. What picks out individual minds? And why are they associated with brains?

By the computationalist hypothesis. Then, if you accept Theaetetus' method to recover the classical notion of knowledge, and its precise translation in arithmetic, you get all the precision needed.




 And why do they agree on a common physical world?

By the unicity of the measure on the first person indeterminacy, guarantied if comp is true (by UDA). Of course if comp is false, we must solve and address the problem differently, but to say comp false today is just premature, as we have not only no evidence against comp, but we don't even have any alternative theories. Even Craig's attempt to give one illustrates how much his intuition of the mind is close to what the machines already tell us.




Arithmetic only shows that some numbers can refer to other numbers, where 'refer' is in terms arithmetic operations. That is very far from showing they are 'minds'.


Now, you really talk like if you never heard about the machine's interview (AUDA). All that is explained in the second part of sane2004, and I have made more than one attempt to explain it on this list. It is not easy as it supposes some knowledge in mathematical logic. "Numbers have mind" is of course a shortcut for "numbers' relations emulate (in the math sense) computations supporting a person having a mind, as comp asks us to accept that the brain is Turing emulable, and all brain emulation exists in arithmetic.

Not only machines or numbers have mind with comp, but the whole theory of souls and god by Plato, that is a whole theology, containing a complete theory of matter is entirely provided in terms so precise that it gives the most clearly refutable theory of souls and matter actually existing.

Of course some literary philosophers, usually of the quite dogmatic and atheist sort, are not happy. But this is a common trends in the development of science. The wishful opportunists are disturbed when some people illustrate the possibility of rigor in their field.

Bruno





Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to