> On 13. May 2019, at 05:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Physicalism fails to account for consciousness. This is the worst possible
failure I can imagine, given that consciousness is the only thing I can be
certain to exist.
>
>> 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 are “things”? You just use lack of rigor and pretend you have an argument.
Telmo.
>
>>>>>> 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.
--
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/18E4487F-8333-4874-AFC5-7B17601BE9CE%40telmomenezes.net.
