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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
