Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
>> refutation of computationalism.
>> It's going through peer review at the moment.
>>
>> The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of
On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:08, Colin Hales wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
>>
>>> Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
>>> refutation of computationalism.
>>> It's going through peer review at the moment.
>>>
>>> The basi
On 10 Aug, 03:54, Colin Hales wrote:
> ronaldheld wrote:
> > As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
> > well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
> > mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
> > something else?
> >
On 10 Aug 2009, at 02:59, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/8/7 Bruno Marchal :
>
> If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical
> proofs only prove mathematical "existence", not onltolgical
> existence. For a non-Platonist , 23 "exists" mathematically,
> but is not RI
On 10 Aug 2009, at 11:04, 1Z wrote (to Colin Hales):
>>
>
> I am not sure what you are saying here. Computationalism is
> generally taken to be a claim about the mind, and is quite a
> respectable thesis
I agree
>
> Bruno's "comp" is something rather different and idiosyncratic
You keep sayin
2009/8/10 Bruno Marchal :
Bruno, I'm broadly in agreement with your comments, and merely
re-emphasise a few points below on which I'm being a stickler. Also,
I have some further comments and questions on step 8.
>> In this light
>> it becomes self-evident that any and all explanatory entities -
Hi Peter,
>> Bruno's "comp" is something rather different and idiosyncratic
>
>
> You keep saying this. This is a lie.
I am not yet entirely sure of this. Let me correct my statement by
saying that this is just a common lie, similar to those who have been
made purposefully in the seve
On 10 Aug 2009, at 17:20, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/8/10 Bruno Marchal :
>
> Bruno, I'm broadly in agreement with your comments, and merely
> re-emphasise a few points below on which I'm being a stickler.
All right.
> Also,
> I have some further comments and questions on step 8.
Good.
>
2009/8/10 Bruno Marchal :
> But strictly speaking (I am also a stickler), the first person can
> never identify herself to *any* representation, she share this with
> the 0-person ONE, or the non differentiate (arithmetical) truth. The
> knower does not know who he is. Relatively to probable hist
I am behind, because I was away delivering Science talk to Star Trek
fans.
I am uncertain what to take away from this thread, and could use the
clarification.
As an aside, I read(or tried to) read the SANE paper on the plane.
Ronald
On Aug 10, 11:24 am
On 9 Aug, 07:41, Rex Allen wrote:
Rex, just a few general points on your posts. The various 'existence'
arguments I've been putting forward recently are intended precisely to
show how our first-person world of meaning and intention is embedded
in a more general environment that is congruent wit
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for
> the sake of the argument.
So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm
conscious OF are complex and structured, my conscious experience of
these things i
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM, David Nyman wrote
>
> What of course is striking
> about your proposals is that in reality nobody behaves as though they
> believe this sort of thing: which is not of course to say that this
> makes it uninteresting.
You speak as if though we have a choice as to h
13 matches
Mail list logo
