Tom: I guess I'll have to ponder this more. In general I am
uncomfortable with having terms like physics and
psychology/consciousness defined (redefined?) later on in an argument
rather than at the beginning.
Bruno: That is a little bit curious because in SANE I *exceptionally*
do give
Le 11-juil.-05, à 19:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Actually this particular quote seems to present consciousness as the
ontological counterpart to the epistemological fundamental
psychology, just as matter is considered the ontological counterpart
to epistemological fundamental physics.
Le 12-juil.-05, à 20:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Tom: My exception to your hypotheses was supposedly independent of
Church's thesis or arithmetic realism, but the objection was regarding
your definition of physics, which seems too narrow to me. But now I
am pondering your rebuttal of
Le 09-juil.-05, à 08:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
As such, I appreciate your willingness to have a discourse on the assumptions in the UDA.
Thanks. And to derive conclusions is a way to discuss hypotheses. I have always been willing to discover that comp is contradictory. Until now I have
Tom Instead of conscious brain I should have said consciousness.
The yes-doctor hypothesis in comp tells me that you are assuming the
existence of consciousness.
Bruno Yes. Under the form of a minimal amount of what is called (in
philosophy of mind/cognitive science) grandmother or folk
his shows the
rest is not extraneous.I am not assuming that our consciousness is
necessarily physical, but again I still don't see why you use the term
"discourse" if it does not refer to something that can be grasped by our
consciousness. Why not just say "correct physics" or
Bruno,
After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to
give you my reaction. It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your
assumptions. I think you?ve even stated that before (using ?embedded?
rather than ?hidden?), referring especially to comp. But I?d say that
7 matches
Mail list logo
