On 5/13/2019 6:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 13. May 2019, at 05:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:52 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:04 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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!) 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 think this misunderstands what science does. In the words of John von Neumann, "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." I see two approaches to this, one (of which I have been the main advocated on this list) might be called "the engineering approach" while the other is the philosophical approach. The philosophical approach either takes consciousness as fundamental and incorrigible (like Cosmin) or tries to equate it with something within a theory based on something else (like Bruno). One thing both approaches seem to rely on is that there can be no p-zombies, i.e. intelligent behavior is a sure sign of consciousness, as JKC is won't to point out. Given that the engineering approach gave us Turing, LISP, Deep Blue, Watson, and AlphaGo...while the philosophical approach "predicts" various things we've know for a century or more and various contradictory things about the future (as Bohr said, "Prediction is hard, especially about the future.") my money is on the engineering approach.
Brent
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] <mailto:[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 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRv36OcWKzxcGZ6XkbU-i%3DP5xMLpw5MRuuW%2BtRb0t0pyg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.--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] <mailto:[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 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18E4487F-8333-4874-AFC5-7B17601BE9CE%40telmomenezes.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
-- 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/3e9c341b-7a4f-430a-5178-61ada2dddc2c%40verizon.net.
