On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality for >>> which there are no evidences at all. >>> >> >> You can't prove primary arithmetic either. >> > > Indeed. > > But there are many evidences that 2+2=4. There are no evidence for primary > matter. Not one. > > > "Primary" is just a word you stick on "physical" to make it seem >> inaccessible. I don't need to prove the physical, I observe it. >> > > ? > > Nobody can observe a metaphysical idea. You can observe matter, and that > is an evidence for matter, not for primary matter. > > Primary means "not deducible" from something else. > Bruno, you are just playing with words. I observe matter - that is evidence for matter, so the observation is primary, not the matter. But then I assume matter and deduce that I will observe it - so the matter becomes primary. You claim arithmetic is primary, because 2+2=4 independent of you and me. But I can deduce arithmetic from observation, making observation primary again, and arithmetic merely derivative. But then I assume that matter is primary - I can then deduce both observation and arithmetic. It is all a matter of choice. You choose to make arithmetic primary, but you can't prove that this is necessarily the case. I can assume that quarks and electrons, etc, are primary, and else follows from this. Maybe I can't prove that either, but I have a hell of a lot more evidence for the possibility of deriving arithmetic from the existence of matter than you have of proving the existence of quarks from pure arithmetic. The evidence is all in my favour. Honestly, Bruce, I think it's you who is playing with words here. The sense in which Bruno is using primary here is perfectly clear - i.e. the fundamental ontological assumption in a comprehensive theory of origins. It doesn't aid comprehension to substitute a quite different meaning - that of primary sense perception - in 'rebuttal'. As to choice of primary ontological assumption, that is fixed by the prior choice of mechanism as the theory of mind. I think frankly that this is the sticking point for you. You want to claim that computation can equally well be 'inferred' from the primary ontological assumption of physics. But unfortunately this amounts to egregious question begging, since the phenomenon of inference, and a fortiori any perceptible phenomenon that depends on it, is itself already part of the mental spectrum whose provenance we're seeking to explain in the first place. David 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
