On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:52 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > It does not. But your conviction that Platonism is false requires some > justification or reason, given that it would overturn a predominate theory > in a field. > No, you have to give evidence in support of platonism, given that this view has been a philosophical failure, leading to a dead end, not a progressive theory. > I await your reason, argument, or evidence. > Arithmetical realism is part of platonism, if not the whole of it. And arithmetical realism is manifestly false -- numbers are not things. > 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? >> > > The independence of arithmetical truth *is* Platonism. With it you get > all the consequences of that infinite truth: > > - The truth that 9 is composite implies the existence of its factor 3. > - The truth of the Nth state of the machine during the execution of a > Kth program implies the existence of the execution trace of program K, etc. > > You are making the usual mistake of taking the existential quantifier over a domain as an ontological statement. > Numbers are just names, not existing things. >> > > Again, where is your evidence? I gave you mine in support of Platonism. > You gave no viable evidence for platonism. > If you have no evidence contrary to Platonism you should at least remain > undecided/agnostic/humble on the matter. > Why? Platonism rests on a confusion. I reject that confusion, and hence platonism. What replaces it at the simplest level is nominalism -- numbers are names, not 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. >> > > Correct, it doesn't. But it does follow from the consciousness of AI, for > if AI is not conscious, then you get philosophical zombies. (as I stated > above). > I do not accept your argument. I have rejected your basic theory, so I thereby reject all its consequences. If the AI is functionally equivalent to a brain, then AI is conscious as the brain is conscious -- consciousness is a function of the brain. > (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. >> > > No one is asking you two. You said there are alternatives which are more > convincing. I am just curious what you were referring to. > Mind is what brains do. > Anything else would be more convincing than mechanism, entailing, as it >> does, arithmetical realism. >> >> > Mechanism does not entail arithmetical realism. They are two separate > assumptions. > OK, then you develop mechanism and all its consequences without assuming arithmetical realism at some point. 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/CAFxXSLRv36OcWKzxcGZ6XkbU-i%3DP5xMLpw5MRuuW%2BtRb0t0pyg%40mail.gmail.com.
