Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi David, I cannot wait for your questions on step 8 :) I cannot wait for your answers :-) Asap. I am busy. Too much things to do. Hope I will find some windows ... Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-11 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Asap. I am busy. Too much things to do. Hope I will find some windows ... No problem Bruno - whenever you have a moment to spare. David Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-11 Thread Mirek Dobsicek
3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { }) If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is card(A^B)? I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-) It's almost like ASCII art. Just wanted to signal that I'm following. mirek --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: You speak as if though we have a choice as to how we behave!  This I can't see at all. Whether our behavior is caused subatomic particles or arithmetic, or is completely uncaused, there is no room for libertarian free will. Whether will is free,

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Aug 2009, at 01:47, David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: 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.

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Aug 2009, at 07:13, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Aug 2009, at 15:32, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: 3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { }) If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is card(A^B)? I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-) You will make panic those who are not familiar with symbols! It's almost like ASCII

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-11 Thread Mirek Dobsicek
Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set exponentiation. I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the seven step serii made a small typo A^B - the set of all functions from A to B. It should have been from B to A. The latest post is correct

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set exponentiation. I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the seven step serii made a small typo A^B - the set of all functions from A to B. I

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread russell standish
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:02:03PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be a causal one. And being uncaused doesn't prevent explanation - for example decay of an unstable nucleus is uncaused, i.e. it is

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-11 Thread Colin Hales
Bruno Marchal wrote: 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 basic

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-11 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Bruno, thanks for your detailed responses which I will peruse closely. Meanwhile, I finally managed to locate on FOR an apparently coherent summary of the MGA (which I understand to be the essence of UDA-8). Here is my understanding of it: The MGA

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-11 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Colin, It seems that to me that until one understands the nature of the extreme Idealism that COMP entails, no arguement based on the physical will do... I refute it thus! -Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html Onward! Stephen - Original Message -