> On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:36, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:19:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 16:40, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> snip
>> >> >> I should add: Why is fictionalism compelling? >> >> When you get down to the bottom of it, numbers are spiritual entities. > > I have no problem with that. I have some evidence for spiritual entities, > indeed all the mathematical notions are spiritual or immaterial, then > consciousness mind, etc. > > > >> Many are compelled to want to eliminate spiritual entities. > > > Like you apparently. If you put the spiritual entities, like numbers and math > in fictionalism, it will look you consider them as fiction, it seems to me. > > I am problem driven. And my favorite problem is the mind-body problem. I > reduce the mind-body problem into the justification why universal spiritual > entities get the (admittedly persistent) impression of a primitively material > world. I found it. All universal “spiritual” entities go through this. > > Bruno > > > > > A: There is arithmetical reality where there are "simulated" entities that > surmise a material reality (but matter itself does not actually exist). > > M. There is material reality where arithmetic is a language (or language > group) created by material entities. But the arithmetical reality is not a language. > > But to have A producing matter in reality, or matter "emerging from" A > (A→M), is a kind of dualism. And what would be the need for A→M if A is > enough? Because []p & <>t (prediction) is not the same as []p, from the point of view of the machine. It feels different. It obeys different laws. That difference of perception is explained in virtue of the arithmetical reality.. > > In M, "mind" comes from the psychical states of matter (Strawson, et al., who > say of course that the "mechanistic", "physicalistic", whatever materialists > are misguided). Which psychical states of matter? Should we give the right to vote to Milk and coffee? To have thinking, usually we bet on some form of dialog, and that is why a brain or a computer has so many connexions/relations. Why would we need a brain if there is some primary matter with the ability to think? Do you think a brain is not Turing emulable, or do you think a brain can be Turing emulated but that this would only make a p-zombie (someone acting like it was conscious, but isn’t?). Bruno > > - pt > > > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 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.
