Re: " timeless mathematical reality"
*there are no such things as mathematical objects*
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
cf. https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/
@philipthrift
On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 1:55:05 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> You should check out Bruno's Universal-Dovetailer-Argument (UDA). It shows
> that inasmuch as you believe your brain could substituted by an artificial
> one, the physical world must therefore be generated by computation. If so,
> all computation exists in a timeless mathematical reality, and our
> experience of the world is an instantiation of some infinite subset of that
> computation. It's a view of the arithmetical world from the inside.
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:44 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> All software that has ever run has run on computers made of materials and
>> assembled in factories.
>>
>> There is no *spiritual/heavenly realm *- as fat as I know - where
>> software is running.
>>
>> Can you show me such a place? Have you seen it?
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 9:33:58 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> What happened to "only brains can be conscious"?
>>>
>>> Are you familiar with virtual machines? Machines simulated in software?
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:10 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The general response here is that there has never existed a program
>>>> that has executed outside a computer. And computers are made of matter.
>>>>
>>>> Now one can generalize "computer": There were things like the abacus
>>>> and slide rule, that executed "programs". Or one executes programs in the
>>>> head (so to speak). But this is the brain,. Again, matter. Or one takes
>>>> one's hand and a pencil or pen and executes a program on a piece of paper.
>>>>
>>>> Again. all matter
>>>>
>>>> Now one can watch a movie (like 2001 with the HAL 9000) or read a book
>>>> of fiction where there is a program running on a some computer. But this
>>>> is
>>>> a fictional story.
>>>>
>>>> One can imagine a program running on an imaginary computer, but this
>>>> imagining is all done in the brain. Matter.
>>>>
>>>> But give me an example of a program running in a "matter free"
>>>> environment: No brains, hands, pencils, computers, abacuses, slide rules,
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> Is it like some ghost out on its own in some immaterial realm?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @philipthift
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:27:35 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One way to get around this is to hold that consciousness is associated
>>>>> with the way information is processed. This is substrate independent -
>>>>> the
>>>>> fact that a brain is physical is beside the point. You could implement a
>>>>> brain in software, and insofar as the same kinds of information
>>>>> processing
>>>>> occur, it would be conscious in the same kind of way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this idea compelling because it makes the link between brains
>>>>> and consciousness without requiring matter, and provides a framework for
>>>>> understanding consciousnesses of other kinds of machines. All that's
>>>>> required is to assume there is something it is like for computation to
>>>>> occur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terren
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:26 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2019 4:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:37:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently *matter* is not "reducible" to just the physics a
>>>>>>>> couple of particles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you're not a materialist. You think there is matter plus
>>>>>>>> something else, that everyone calls "mind", but you're going to call
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> "matter" and add it to everyone else's list of matter so you can still
>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>> yourself a materialist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But everything reducing to the physics of particles is thought of as
>>>>>>> *physicalism* (not materialism):
>>>>>>> *Physicalism and materialism*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reductive physicalism
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductive_physicalism>...is normally
>>>>>>> assumed to be incompatible with panpsychism. Materialism
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism>, if held to be distinct
>>>>>>> from physicalism, is compatible with panpsychism insofar as mental
>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What mental properties? intention? reflection? remembering?
>>>>>>> That's what I mean by saying attributing "experience" to matter is an
>>>>>>> unprincipled half-measure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brains are matter, just as livers, legs, trees, tables, rocks,
>>>>>> comets, planets, stars, cockroaches, galaxies, bacteria .. are matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brains produce intentions, reflections, remembrances, ... .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So (at least some) matter of the cosmos has psychical (mental)
>>>>>> properties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The body+mind idea, the idea that mind is something separate from
>>>>>> body, is perhaps the worst idea ever invented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @philipthrift
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>
--
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.
