On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns, is
for explanations to form a "virtuous circle" in which everything is
explained in terms of other things ultimately forming loops: NUMBERS
-> "MACHINE DREAMS" -> PHYSICAL -> HUMANS -> PHYSICS -> NUMBERS I
call this "virtuously circular" if it is comprehensive so that
everything is somewhere in the circle.
The thing about such a loop is that you can start at any point -- for
instance, PHYSICAL, HUMANS, PHYSICS, or anywhere else. The question
then is whether this actually achieves you anything?
Just stop on the simplest theory.
"Simple" is an undefined term. You might think the integers are simple,
I might think that physics is simple. No-one is right in any absolute sense.
Ig you can explain QM and consciousness from elementary arithmetic,
you make a gain compared to starting from physicalist QM, which
assumes Matter, QM (and thus arithmetic, as QM already assumes
arithmetic).
Well, you should formalize your theory so that we can at least compare.
My theory is that the external objective physical world exists,
independently of you or me, or even of consciousness. Consciousness is a
property of certain forms of matter, and matter achieves those forms,
and hence consciousness, by the process of evolution. Mind (and
consciousness) is a property of brains and other configurations of
matter that have similar functionality. We learn about these things, and
about the basis of consciousness, empirically, by applying the
scientific method in our study. There is no "hard problem" of
consciousness, because once we have understood the functionality, we
have understood all that there is to it.
Your "Yes, doctor" thought experiment is actually saying much the same
thing: the functionality is all that matters -- once you have understood
the function, you have understood consciousness. The doctor doesn't have
to transfer "your consciousness" once he has replaced your brain with a
functionally equivalent computer. There is no duality.
I have already give three equivalent version of "my" theory, which is
probably the same of yours minus assuming mind and matter and a
mysterious link between, as far as I understand.
As I understand it, your theory assumes the existence of numbers, or at
least of the integers. Your base ontology can be used to support axioms,
giving RA, PA and so on. Once you have some axioms and rules of
inference, you can prove theorems. You then identify "existence" with
the existential quantifier of mathematics -- if we can prove Ex(x = y),
then you say that y is also part of the ontology. But without assuming
the numbers to start with, you can never get to theorems and the
existential quantifier. The existential quantifier is not then a
definition of what "existence" consists in. Your ontology is assumed
before you get that far, before you have arithmetic even.
So you are actually no better off than the physicalist -- you still have
to assume a primitive ontology: this might form a model for arithmetic,
but then so does the physical universe. The physical has the property of
containing distinct objects -- hence already has an ontology of
integers, but in addition, things exist in the physical universe without
the superstructure of axioms and theorems -- we just look and see!
Physicalism is actually simpler!
Bruce
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
