On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:08:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles') > >>effectively undermines computationalism, or any argument that > >>arithmetic is prior to physics. > >> > >>See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles > >> > >>In order to escape the paradox, you have to resort to a formalist > >>approach, and that renders the formalism devoid of semantic content. > >> > >I don't see why that undermines computationalism. Could you please expand? > > Modus ponens is only a formal manipulation of symbols, with no > semantic content. >
Are you trying to say that modus ponens is not valid of reality, hence computionalism is false (but that's employing modus ponens, so you've tied yourself up in a knot)? Or, are you trying to say that computationalism has no semantic content because it is formal? That argument has already been run by someone on this list - the trouble is the only semantics required are internal to the system. Or something else? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
