On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:06:38 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Jul 2013, at 17:29, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
>
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> 
> > > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Friday, July 12, 2013 10:49:20 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I think functionalism (or more specifically, computationalism) is   
> >>> the 
> >>> currently leading theory of mind among cognitive scientists and 
> >>> philosophers.  It is neither a materialistic, eliminativist,   
> >>> dualist, nor 
> >>> idealist conception of mind. 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Why isn't it dualist? You have the simulator (arithmetic truth,   
> >> localized 
> >> arbitrarily by spontaneous/inevitable Turing machine), and the   
> >> simulated (an 
> >> emergent non-arithmetic presence which appears magically within the 
> >> simulation, for no reason). 
> >> 
> >> Why isn't it idealist? Can computation be separated from ideal   
> >> principles? 
> >> 
> >> I think that most who subscribe to comp do so in an eliminativist   
> >> way. 
> >> Consciousness is seen as an epiphenomenon of unconscious   
> >> computations. 
> > 
> > Maybe you're right, but I think they are confusing comp with a form of 
> > materialism where you just substitute equations for Turing machines. 
> > Bruno's UDA seems to reduce this idea ad absurdum. 
> > 
> > My personal and current bet is that everything 
>
> But what everything?


Everything, or everythingness is sense. It/we are perceptual participants 
in a pansensitive Uni-verse, aka monad of non-orientable 
self-juxtaposition, 

http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/14/breaking-the-fourth-wall/
 

> What does exist?


If we are talking about what exist in an absolute perspective, then only 
sense exists. If we are talking about existence as far as what can be 
sensed locally to each of us, that depends on the whole history of our 
local circumstance going back to the 'beginning'/hub of time. If you are 
talking about existence as far as realism, then you are talking about what 
exists publicly, so that would be that which appears to be matter and the 
mathematical/eternal/unintentional functions of matter (energy).
 

> Or what do you assume at the   
> start. 


I assume sense. 
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/msr_legend.jpg
 

> With comp 0 exists, and if x exists s(x) exists, and nothing   
> more than that need to "exist" in the ontological sense. 


First of all 0 and x don't exist now. They are concepts. I have never seen 
0 and 0 has never seen me. Secondly in order for those concepts, which I 
call Quanta to exist, you already have to have a universe full of things to 
count in which the sense-making clarity of counting is presented across 
multiple sense channels. Of course s(x) doesn't work for all senses. While 
Mathematics can be thought of as quite a deep interior pursuit, it is 
ultimately the essence of exterior experiences which are being 
interiorized, as I have tried to point out many times. To count, we need 
rhythm and memory first. Beyond that, we need to recruit our fingers and 
toes as our first mechanical digits, and then beads, gears, semiconductors 
and ll the rest.
 

> The laws of   
> addition and mutiplication are enough to define the dreams, and   
> consciousness and matter are dream appearance (plausibly "true" for   
> consciousness", and "probable" for the physical expectations. 
>
> That does not surprise me. If you begin with 'laws', then you begin with 
consciousness already. You invent law to invent math to invent 
consciousness to justify law. There is no law, no law giver, no law 
follower without sense, and with sense there is no need for a law 
primitively. Everything feels what it is, knows what to do enough to do it. 
Law is not imposed from the void, it emerges from the coherence of common 
sense-motive interaction.
 

>
>
>
> > is conscious to begin 
> > with (i.e consciousness is the fundamental stuff). 
>
> But consciousness is not a stuff, and ... well ... it might be as   
> fundamental as arithmetical truth minus epsilon ... 
>

I try to avoid using 'stuff' but it creeps in sometimes. Fundamentality? 

>
>
>
> > Comp -- or 
> > Russell's theory of nothing -- are just ways to explain why I perceive 
> > the sort of stuff I perceive. I don't think all this is terribly 
> > incompatible with your views, actually. 
>
> Craig *assumes* some physical reality, so it can't work with comp. 
>

I don't assume physical reality, I assume aesthetic experience, some of 
which is public facing and some of tends to be more private facing.

Craig
 

>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> > 
> > Telmo. 
> > 
> >> As for Relativity, I don't really know what it can mean other than   
> >> a context 
> >> of sensory awareness in which one phenomenon is felt, seen, or   
> >> otherwise 
> >> experienced as being 'related' in some way. Relativity is already 
> >> perception, or it is nothing. 
> >> 
> >> Thanks, 
> >> Craig 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> >> To post to this group, send email to everything- 
> >> li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. 
>
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> > 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to