On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:04 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:02 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>> 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!) >> > > That's an anecdote, not data. > The truth of these issues is not determined by counting heads. what is your alternative?) >> >> Nominalism. >> > > Incompleteness disproves nominalism. Arithmetical truth was proven not > only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable. > What has arithmetical truth got to do with it? Numbers are just names, not existing things. > 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. >> > > If it doesn't follow then the functionally equivalent AI would be > conscious. Therefore mechanism. What am I missing? > The fact that mechanism does not follow from the possibility of AI. > (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. >> >> Above you said there are other possibilities which are more convincing. > What are they and why are they more convincing? > I do not have to provide a final theory. Anything else would be more convincing than mechanism, entailing, as it does, arithmetical realism. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTnNP50R13bp6ugt008evPOnNXykyFCSPEOcmB1rVrqKA%40mail.gmail.com.
