On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:58:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Sep 2013, at 20:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 23, 2013 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> shape belongs to the category of numbers imagination, and with comp this 
>> is given by  arithmetical relations.
>>
>>
> Numbers imagination seem like human imagination to me.
>
>
> Nice. That is a reason for taking number's talk seriously.
>


I had more of 'numbers imagination = pathetic fallacy' meaning in mind.
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> It is not. What is important is to not impose certainties on other. To 
>> make clear what we assume. 
>>
>
> That's what I am trying to do - make clear what you assume. If you start 
> out granting numbers imagination, then you have already have consciousness, 
> and have no need for comp.
>
>
> Of course. Comp is an assumption concerning consciousness and 
> computations. Then the *conclusion* is that the theory of everything is 
> elementary arithmetic.
>


Buy everything that is not obviously elementary arithmetic can just be 
presumed to be part of numbers imagination. Comp is not a theory of 
everything, its a dualism of everything computational vs everything 
imagined by computations.

 

>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> Maybe you can get a set of variables with unknown values, but why would 
>> they have a smell or sound?
>>
>>
>> Because if they didn't, you would die when saying "yes" to the doctor.
>>
>
> Yes, you would.
>
>
> Because you assume non-comp, but I still don't see why.
>

Because flavors exist, but comp has no reason to imagine them.
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> The truth or falsity of comp is out of my topic. 
>>
>> I am interested only in the refutability of comp.
>>
>
> That may already be biasing the evaluation of comp beyond repair. 
> Consciousness is not about refutability, 
>
>
>
> Doing a precise theory is about making a refutable theory.
>

Depends if the theory is about consciousness or not. Consciousness can only 
be a baseless assertion. It is the base of all assertion and the assertion 
of all bases.


>
>
> it is about perceiving and participating. Refutability is a second order 
> logic derived from that. If you use the weak standard of refutability, then 
> you cannot be surprised when we take a puppet for a person.
>
>
> I can hardly be surprised, because that is mainly what I assume. 
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRluXBa4e8

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> 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-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