From: *Jason Resch* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:02 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a
simple fact to prove: all computations are realised in
all models of arithmetic.
But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human
mind, and mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream.
You sound certain. What is your evidence?
Jason
The is no evidence for mathematical realism,
There is plenty given in my other post to you. Even if there were
none, what evidence do you have against it for you to be so sure it is
false? (mathematical realism is the leading philosophy of mathematics,
among mathematicians,
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.The other days of the week most
mathematicians are nominalists! (And I had this from a professional
mathematician!)
what is your alternative?)
Nominalism.
and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our
experience.
So you believe an AI that was functionally equivalent to you would be
a philosophical zombie?
Not at all. That does not follow.
(Mechanism is the leading theory of mind among philosophers of mind,
Maybe for some philosophers of mind. But there are many other
possibilities, most of which are more convincing.
what is your alternative?)
Why should I have an alternative? I can know that a theory does not work
without providing a theory that does work.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/23eed4ca-5529-2752-6c41-3b337d510e86%40optusnet.com.au.
