On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:04:46PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Jul 2015, at 03:33, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>>My conclusion is that, overall, his arguments do not entail the > >>>conclusions he seeks to draw. > >> > >> > >>>So yes, I seek to defeat his 'proofs', not necessarily to prove > >>>the contrary. > >> > >>Ok, but I honestly think that you failed. > > > >At step 7, you, yourself, admit that physicality, or "concreteness" of > >the primitive ontology has no bearing on phenomenal reality. > > I am not sure I understand why you say this. At step seven, I still > accept the idea that perhaps a concrete ontological physical > universe is needed for comp to enact consciousness. We get the > reversal, but only assuming he robust physical universe. We can > conclude and stop here with some strong Occam razor. >
OK, to be more precise - when I say "at step 7", I mean "after step 7", or "conclude by step 7". But given your responses below, I think you got this. > > > > >You > >haven't proven immateriality, just that the primitive physicality > >is an > >unnecessary assumption. > > At step seven yes. > > > > >You need to wield Occam's razor to eliminate > >primitive physicality. > > At step seven? A strong one, yes. > > > > >I might be happy with this, but perhaps Bruce isn't. > > > >Step 8 doesn't address this issue at all, as it seems inapplicable to > >a robust universe. > > Step 8 eliminates the need to assume the robust universe to get the > reversal. > Step 8 shows that a robust universe, if it plays any role related to > consciousness, give matter non Turing emulable properties, making > comp false. ?? A robust universe is compatible with COMP. Did you mean "concrete universe" (aka primitive physical ontology)? If primitive matter plays a non Turing emulable role, I > can no more be sure that the doctor can get the subst level right. > Step allows to conclude to non-physicalism, using now just the usual > weak occam razor used in amy applied science. > I follow you there. But I think Bruce doesn't accept the use of Occam's razor that way. Let me put it another way - Bruce do you accept Laplace's "je n'ai besoin de cet hypothese" when talking about God? Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
