### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

David Nyman wrote: 1Z wrote: This *is* ecumenicism. The buck stops here. What higher court of appeal is there , than consideration of the nature of EVERYTHING? Touché! If Bruno isn't reifying numbers, he's in trouble. And if the materialist isn't reifying the observables, he's

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Le 18-oct.-06, à 16:41, David Nyman a écrit : Point taken. The EC 'axioms' may be better conceived as primitive computations (like the UD), not theorems. In terms of comp, is there any necessary distinction between a UD and a parallel distributed 'architecture'? I am not sure what the EC

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

David Nyman: Point taken. The EC 'axioms' may be better conceived as primitive computations (like the UD), not theorems. In terms of comp, is there any necessary distinction between a UD and a parallel distributed 'architecture'? I am not sure what the EC axioms are. The UD is both

### RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Peter Jones writes: Yes, of course. All such discourse is metaphysics, what else could it be? It is a question of faith if we wish to go beyond this acknowledgement and ascribe 'ultimate reality' in the direction of our metaphysical gestures. When I say metaphysical, I don't mean

### RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Bruno Marchal writes: The UD is both massively parallel and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and executes them all together, but one step at a time. The D is for dovetailing which is a technic for emulating parallelism sequentially. Given that no actual

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Bruno Marchal writes: The UD is both massively parallel and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and executes them all together, but one step at a time. The D is for dovetailing which is a technic for emulating parallelism sequentially.

### RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Empiricism as a philosophical movement has traditionally been opposed to metaphysics. It hasn't just been a mild disagreement either, but an at times vicious dispute (well, as vicious as philosophers get). David Hume suggested that the best place for books on metaphysics was in the fire,

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Colin Hales wrote: Empiricism as a philosophical movement has traditionally been opposed to metaphysics. It hasn't just been a mild disagreement either, but an at times vicious dispute (well, as vicious as philosophers get). David Hume suggested that the best place for books on metaphysics was in

### RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

It's one of my favourite lines from Hume! but the issue does not live quite so clearly into the 21st century. We now have words and much neuroscience pinning down subjective experience to the operation of small groups of cells and hence, likely, single cells. It's entirely