On 24 Jan 2015, at 06:38, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference
and a diameter.
This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the "platonic perfect
circle"? Or about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and
a compass?
Roger: A physically realized circle.
I doubt this exist. And with computationalism, I doubt this makes
sense.
Roger: Draw a circle on a chalkboard, and it exists outside the
head. The concept of a perfect circle exists inside the mind/head.
OK, but the circle drawn on the board is not a circle: it is an
approximate representation of a cercle. With computationalism, even
that approximation exists "in your head". In fact even your head is
"in your head". All there is are singular computattions in arithmetic,
in infinitely many version. The hallucination of a physical world
emerges from them. The math explains how and why some hallucination
get shared by different interacting machines, and why they can persist
a "very long internal time".
-----------------------
I don't know any one not believing in the arithmetical reality, even
philosophers (which sometimes claims that they does not admit them,
but eventually betray themselves.
Not everybody agrees that it is enough for explaining consciousness
and the physical reality, but most everyday concept (like forever,
while, again, anniversary, death, everyday, ...) assumes the
intuition needed for agreeing on the elementary arithmetical axioms.
Roger: To think that almost everyone believes in an arithmetical
reality is to ignore parts of philosophy like physicalism,
nominalism, etc. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's
entry on "Platonism in Metaphysics" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
)
This is, as it is said there, "platonism" with a little "p". I prefer
to reserve the word "platonism" for Plato's platonism, and use
"realism" instead? Then computationalism forces us to be realist on
numbers, computable functions, etc.
Also, for most mathematician; the number 3 is not an abstract object,
but the most concrete object thay can imagine.
The moon is an abstract object, for them, as it is a convenient
fiction referring to a persistent collective hallucination, and I have
explained why, once we assume computationalism it has to be like that.
You really should try to find an error in the UDA, because your
assumption of the existence of a primary physical reality just doesn't
work.
"...Of course, platonism about any of these kinds of objects is
controversial. Many philosophers do not believe in abstract objects
at all..."
We are in the aristotelian era. many philosophers are just wrong on
this. But that is not important. I don't do any philosophy. I derive
from a clear assumption clear consequences. I prefer to do philosophy
only after to get the scientific result. If not there will be a lot of
confusion.
The starting question is this: are you OK with the idea that we would
not see any difference from our first person point of view with an
artificial digital brain (copying the brain at some level of
description). Putting him roughly: do you accept the idea that the
brain is a sort of (natural) machine/computer (like the heart is
accepted to be a natural pump)?
While many on this list seem to believe in it, not even everyone
here seems to buy into it. It's one idea among many. As I've said
many times, let's all work our models and see what progress we can
make.
All what I say is derived from the assumption that the brain or the
body is Turing emulable at a level such that if we turing-emulate it,
you would not see the difference subjectively. It is my working
assumption.
-----------------------
Roger: As above, a physically realized circle.
I really doubt you could realize a circle in nature. Only an
approximation, and then I am not sure if nature is not in the head
of the Turing machines and relative numbers.
So you take as axioms that there is a primary physical universe. I
do not. To better tackle the mind-body problem, it is better to be
agnostic on this, and open to the idea that such a primary physical
universe might not exist.
Roger: I can accept any idea including arithmetical reality as long
as there's more logic and evidence for it than for other ideas.
That's what I call being an agnostic. I haven't seen or read
anything here or elsewhere that has convinced me of arithmetical
reality as opposed to other ideas.
You add metaphysics where there is none. Did you go out of the
classroom at school when they mentioned the existence of the even
numbers, or of the prime numbers?
There is nothing metaphysical here. You need just tell me if you agree
that 0 + x = x, 0*x = 0, x+s(y) = s(x+y), I can write this in english.
the last one means that if you add a number x with a number which is
the successor of y, then you obtain the successor of the sum of x and
y. It is equivalent with x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1.
If you doubt this, you have to give me an evidence for why x + (y + 1)
= (x + y) + 1 is false for some number x and y.
Mostly, I see unfounded assertions, claims and assumptions.
My assumption is that there is no magic operating in the brain.
Many might say that about my arguments, too, I admit.
Overall, what I take is that whatever exists, whether it's
called mental, abstract, physical, inside the mind, outside the
mind, etc., it still exists.
I am OK with this, but when we look at the details, some existence
needed to be assume (like the existence of 0), and some existence can
be derived.
"Mental", "arithmetical reality", "abstract", "physical", etc. are
all just labels for existent entities. I live in a universe made of
existent entities, whatever they're called.
OK. But if computationalism is correct, it is not a primitively
physical universe.
My goal in my thinking is to try and figure out why there are
existent entities instead of no existent entities (e.g. the
"something" versus "nothing" question) and to use that thinking to
build a model of what the universe seems to look like and to
hopefully make testable predictions. Of course, I'm a long way from
that but am working on it. I've summarized my thinking at my
website and at this list. Overall, you don't believe in a primary
physical universe. That's great, and I'm happy for you. I do.
I have never say that I don't believe in a primary physical universe.
I am agnostic. All what I say is that IF computationalism is correct,
THEN there is no primary physical universe (playing any role related
to my consciousness, to be more precise (we still needs some amount of
Occam to get rid of it)).
So, if you assume a primitive physical universe (related to our
consciousness), then you derive from my argument that computationalism
is false. There is some actual infinities, and non computable one, and
non FPI recovrable one, playing in the brain. But this seems using a
string ontological commitment to avoid an explanation. It is a bit
like a creationist saying "I am OK that natural selection explains a
lot, but let us be clear, it completely fails to explain how God made
this in six days".
As always, we'll all take our thinking, work our models and see what
progress can be made. And, good luck to everyone!
Good luck to you too. Can you recall me you website?
Bruno
----------------------------
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
