On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:46:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
Brent
Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this
stupid misunderstanding?
It was last time yesterday when I wrote the opposite.
Here's the exchange:---------------------------------------
JM: I appreciate the mathematical truth (reality) but do not
substitute it for REALITY (of which my agnosticism fails to know
more).
BM: But mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show
that the machine's epistemology is already richer than the
mathematical truth.
Then, yes, for the ontology, IF we assume comp, then the
mathematical, even the arithmetical reality, is shown to be complete.
But we stay agnostic on this, as we stay agnostic on comp itself.
Somehow you seem to be non agnostic on the question of reality. You
seem to talk like if you knew that reality is not the arithmetical
reality.
We don't have to know that reality is not the arithmetical reality,
we can infer it from the nature of arithmetic and its virtues in
rendering processes automatic and unconscious.
Consciousness might be indeed related to what, in arithmetic, is not
amenable to automatic processing, like the FPI already is. In that cse
the brain too filter consciousness, through automation. Open problem.
We can understand from the reality of presence that there is a
difference between presentation and representation which is not
visible from representation.
Yes, that is already the case for the notion of computation. But in
arithmetic, we can say that a computation exists, when we can prove
that its description exists. But theyremain different notions.
That machine epistemology extends beyond mathematics need not imply
that extension is aesthetic or experiential, any more than any
emergent property implies an army of conscious agents causing the
emergence.
Sure, that is why we assume the theory. If comp was a theorem, it
would not be a theory.
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].
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.
