On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:04 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:02 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett <[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!) >> > > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTnNP50R13bp6ugt008evPOnNXykyFCSPEOcmB1rVrqKA%40mail.gmail.com.
