My argument only seems to you to beg the question because you frame the question from the start in a way that unfairly places a theory about experience as being equivalent to experience itself. Comp assumes that third person realism is reality and the question is only who does first person experience fit in with that reality. I see that this assumption takes the foundation of experience itself for granted. Arithmetic and machines are conjured into Platonic non-locality and erupt spontaneously into florid locality, when in fact no such geometric expression is explainable by Comp. I have pointed out many times that all arithmetic operations supervene on lower level input-output sense ontologies, but you seem to avoid this stark revelation and try to patch it up with the expediencies of theory. You say 'we have to start somewhere', but that too is an intuitive anchor rather than something which can be produced by machine logic. The logic of Comp rests on the unacknowledged physics of sense, which it mistakes for a disembodied arithmetic primitive - the shadow of sense reflected on disowned idealized matter (digital, solid body groupings). Craig > > > 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 email@example.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.