Re: A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
I've seen John Baez suggest that On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: arxiv.org:0908.2063v1 Any comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that without platonism, the square

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 11:23, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/17 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Look, I have already said that I am not going to get into an argument about which pixies exist. Forgive me for butting in, but I wonder whether there is a level at which your metaphysical

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by   mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or   explain. But what is this primary matter? If it is entirely divorced from

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 18:51, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Jesse Mazer wrote: Does Bruno assume arithmetic is really real or just a really good model, and can the difference be known? I don't think Bruno believes there is anything else for arithemeic *to* model.

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 20:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 02:47, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer wrote: AFAICS the assumption of primary matter 'solves' the white rabbit problem by making it circular: i.e. assuming that primary matter exists entails restricting the theory to just those mathematics and

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by   mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 00:41, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yep. I have no problem with any of that Really?  Let's see then. The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a statement like unicorns have one horn

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 01:43, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I am trying to persuade Bruno that his argument has an implict assumption of Platonism that should be made explicit. An  assumption of Platonism as a non-observable background might

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 09:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote: On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 09:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:41, Flammarion wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 10:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:48, Flammarion wrote: What do you mean by ontological existence? Real in the Sense that I am Real. What does that mean? Do you mean real in the sense that 1-I is real? or do you mean real in the sense

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 10:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com However, some physicists - Julian Barbour for one - use the term in a way that

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Aug, 16:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Aug 2009, at 14:34, 1Z wrote: On 14 Aug, 09:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are dismissing the first person indeterminacy. A stuffy TM can run a computation. But if a consciousness is attached to that

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 09:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote: So you reject arithmetical realism, and thus you reject comp. The computaitonal Theory of Mind has no implications about Platonism. Comp is based on the notion of digitalness, which

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote: Any physcial theory is distinguished from an Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only some possible mathematical structures. That is a general statement

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 12:52, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:32:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 18 Aug, 12:00, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 15:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Aug 2009, at 12:14, Flammarion wrote: Each branch of math has its own notion of existence, and with comp,   we have a lot  choice, for the ontic part, but usually I take arithmetical existence, if only because

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 01:51, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: David Nyman wrote: On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no   doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot be primitive,   assuming

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 08:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 02:31, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: This is not the point. The point is that if you develop a correct argumentation that you are material, and that what we see around us is material, then the

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 01:29, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno's position is that only one of the above can be true (i.e. CTM and PM are incompatible) as shown by UDA-8 (MGA/Olympia).   I've also argued this, in a somewhat different form.  Peter's position I think is that 1) and 2) are

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Aug 2009, at 22:43, Flammarion wrote: On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote: Any physcial theory is distinguished from an Everythingis theory

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 22:46, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/18 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a statement like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality and thus being forced to accept

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Aug, 22:46, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/18 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yes, of course, this is precisely my point, for heaven's sake. Here's the proposal, in your own words: assuming physicalism the class of consciousness-causing processes might

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 10:28, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: There is no immaterial existence at all, and my agreeign to have my brain physcially replicated doesn't prove there is. And you saying so doesn't prove there isn't. So to save

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation is a physical process taking place in brains and computer hardware.  The paraphrase argument - the one you said you

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 15:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:36, Flammarion wrote: On 19 Aug, 01:29, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno's position is that only one of the above can be true (i.e. CTM and PM are incompatible) as shown by UDA-8 (MGA

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 13:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't.  It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it is a posteriori compressed - for example into 'computational' language - then this demands that it be *capable* of prior justification by rigorous spelling out

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 13:48, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Aug, 09:36, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Bruno's position is that only one of the above can be true (i.e. CTM and PM are incompatible) as shown by UDA-8 (MGA/Olympia).   I've also argued this, in a somewhat

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 16:41, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't see, indeed, how you can both define matter from contingent structures and still pretend that matter is primitive. I am saying that material existence *is* contingent existence. It is not a structure of anything.

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 21:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 009/8/19 Flammarion

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 02:23, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 19 Aug, 13:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't.  It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it is a posteriori compressed - for example

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 13:30, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But also - just to dispose once and for all of this particular point - I want to be sure that you understand that I'm not arguing *for* eliminative materialism, except as

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 00:28, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:21, Flammarion wrote: Where he says computation can happen without any physicial process at all. I don't see any evidence for that I am explaining this right now. Only Bruno thinks computation trancends

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 01:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com: So someone else noticed Peter dodging the consequences of what he originally claimed with respect to Quinean paraphrase!  Thanks. What consequence was that?

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 00:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:59, Flammarion wrote: On 19 Aug, 15:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:36, Flammarion wrote: On 19 Aug, 01:29, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno's position

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 02:23, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 19 Aug, 13:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't.  It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it is a posteriori compressed - for example

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 11:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Aug 2009, at 10:46, Flammarion wrote: Indeed, you don't believe in the number seven. But sometimes you seem   to believe in their mathematical existence, and that is all what I   need. No. I always qualify mathematical

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 13:30, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Aug 2009, at 02:07, David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com: I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation   is a

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 15 Aug, 02:40, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/14 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I think need to take a hard line on RITSIAR. I feel that the key lies in what Bruno terms the certainty of the ontological first person (OFP): i.e. the sine qua non of reality as it is

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Flammarion
On 21 Aug, 17:25, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 Aug, 09:37, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, of course you're right - perhaps I didn't phrase my response to Jesse clearly enough. In my discussion with Peter about Quinean 'eliminative paraphrasing', I

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-23 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 15:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:33, Flammarion wrote: On 19 Aug, 08:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 02:31, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: This is not the point. The point is that if you

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote: But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious in the way they try to explain, or explain away the mind body problem. I can imagine that your consciousness supervene

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 26 Aug, 01:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Just so. To recapitulate the (approximate) history of this part of the discussion, Peter and I had been delving into the question - posed by him - of whether a complete scan of a brain at the subatomic level could in principle

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 26 Aug, 21:49, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: David Nyman wrote: The question is whether PM is sufficient to describe the system. Language is almost certainly inadequate to describing what it is like to 'be' the system - you cannot even fully describe what it is like to be

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 27 Aug, 01:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: The idea of 'being' somebody (or thing) else already assumes dualism. It assumes some 'I' that could move to be Stathis or a bat and yet retain some identity. But on a

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 21 Aug, 16:39, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/21 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Do you concede that many aspects of mind -- cognition, memory and so on -- are not part of any Hard Problem? Yes, absolutely. But I think our basic divergence is that I say you can't

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic level, you still wouldn't have captured all the information? That's an interesting question and one that I think relates

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 21 Aug, 20:40, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Aug 2009, at 17:39, David Nyman wrote: With UDA alone, of course not. But AUDA does provides a a theory of qualia which explains why no 1- person can and will ever explain the qualitative feature of its qualia. It treats

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 26 Aug, 17:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote: What about lower levels? Surely it doesn't matter whether 10,000 K+ cross the axon membrane or 10,001 cross. So somehow looking at just the right level matters in the hypothesis of

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Flammarion
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it is independant of the (physical or ... virtual) implementation. If I perfom the computation on an abacus or within my

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 27 Aug, 20:11, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: and hence that it can't in and of itself tell us anything fundamental about ontology. I don't think it revelas it sown ontology. OTOH, it must somehow be taken accounto fi in any

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 02:20, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: the door is opened to some grander metaphysical speculation concerning the nature of the world. For example, it is often noted that physics characterizes its basic entities only extrinsically, in terms of their relations to

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 08:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote: On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote: But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 02:27, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic level, you still wouldn't have captured all

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 09:50, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 28 Aug, 07:27, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 07:27, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: This is because if consciousness is a computational process

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 21 Aug, 20:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Aug 2009, at 09:33, Flammarion wrote: On 20 Aug, 00:28, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:21, Flammarion wrote: Where he says computation can happen without any physicial process at all. I

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 12:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:52, Flammarion wrote: On 28 Aug, 08:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote: On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 21

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Aug, 00:38, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 Aug, 19:04, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Explaining away qua reduction is nto the same as explaining away qua elimination. Well, either way he's explaining away, as you yourself point out below

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 25 Aug, 08:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:38, Flammarion wrote: That is false. You are tacitly assuming that PM has to be argued with the full force of necessity -- I don't remember. I don't find trace of what makes you think so. Where? Well

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-28 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 13:51, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: Is functionalism monism, property dualism, or might it even be a form of substance dualism? Monism --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-29 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 17:07, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: On 28 Aug, 02:27, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: Do you think that if you scanned my brain

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-29 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 18:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote: If the physical laws are turing emulable, then whatever is responsible for my consciousness can be Turing emulable at some level (I assume some form of naturalism/materialism or

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 18:15, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 22:47, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 30 Aug, 07:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Aug 2009, at 20:34, Flammarion wrote: On 28 Aug, 18:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote: If the physical laws are turing emulable, then whatever is   responsible

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 30 Aug, 22:21, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: Ok, so you want to solve the hard problem right at the beginning by taking conscious thoughts as the basic elements of your ontology. No I don't - that's why I said I'd rather not

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 00:21, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/28 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: 1. It seems reasonable that relations must have relata. However, relata need not have a rich set of properties. You could build a physical universe out a single type of particle

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a neurosurgeon may offer considerable advantage. If that's what the future held for me, then that's exactly what I

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 19:15, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On 9 Aug, 06:55, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: If you suffer

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 16:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:46, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Aug, 08:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote: 1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or   generated

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 28 Aug, 15:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 13:47, Flammarion wrote: On 21 Aug, 20:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Aug 2009, at 09:33, Flammarion wrote: I can only hope you will work on the UDA+MGA, and understand that non

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 17:57, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: If the lower level is discarded, the qualia aren't there. So where are they? Since you find this mode of thought so uncongenial, let's focus on this single issue for now.  I don't

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-31 Thread Flammarion
On 11 Aug, 16:38, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com: Standard physicalism, on the other hand, by banishing self-access from its fundamental notions of causal adequacy (though arrogating the right to whisk a mysteriously powerless ghost of it

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 01:25, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Peter, surely you must see that in saying abstracta are arrived at by ignoring irrelevant features of individual objects you are simply agreeing with Quentin that if everything is reduced

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 01:21, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 Aug, 15:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I would not put AR on the same par as PM(*). I know that Peter have problem with this, but AR does not commit you ontologically. It is just the idea that arithmetical

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 00:46, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: It's more an attempt to characterise our metaphysical *situation*: i.e. the intuition that it is enduring, immediate, self-referential and self-relative.   Actually, reflecting

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 00:09, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: That says nothing about qualia at all. It would be helpful if we could deal with one issue at a time.  Most of the passage you commented on was intended - essentially at your

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 10:58, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I think you should be more concerned about the long passages I am not commenting on. That is becuase I find them completely incomprehensible. In that case you may wish to reconsider

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 11:09, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: This clearly unmasks any such notion of PM as a superfluous assumption with respect to CTM, and Occam consequently dictates that we discard it as any part of the theory. Au contraire

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 11:16, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly, if mind is a computational process, there is no way for it to know it is being simulated on the level 0 of the real (if there is one). There would be *no difference* for it if it was simulated on virtual machine running

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 11:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 10:49, Flammarion wrote: Can't matter have processes? But in that line of discussion, the question should be: can primary matter have processes. You said yourself that primary matter is propertyless. How

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 11:19, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Peter, I've considered whether anything is to be gained from my responding further, and much as I regret coming to this conclusion, I don't think we can make any further progress together

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 12:26, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Peter, you need to keep firmly in mind that the superfluity of PM follows on the *assumption* of CTM. The razor is then applied on the basis of that assumption. If you prefer a theory

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 15:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Aug 2009, at 15:47, Flammarion wrote: On 30 Aug, 07:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Aug 2009, at 20:34, Flammarion wrote: On 28 Aug, 18:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 17

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 15:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Aug 2009, at 23:21, David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: Ok, so you want to solve the hard problem right at the beginning by taking conscious thoughts as the basic elements of your ontology.

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 13:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 13:04, Flammarion wrote: On 1 Sep, 11:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 10:49, Flammarion wrote: Can't matter have processes? But in that line of discussion, the question should

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: That is the point. I should say that my starting position before encountering Bruno's views was against the tenability of CTM on the basis of any consistent notion

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 14:40, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 12:04, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Yeah. Or you could just answer my questions. The problem is the world of assumption contained in your use of just. Really? There is no possibility of a context-free

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 15:50, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: That is the point. I should say that my starting position

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 16:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: That is the point. I should say that my starting position before

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 16:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:53, Flammarion wrote: On 1 Sep, 15:50, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 13:08

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 16:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote: On 1 Sep, 16:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 13:08

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 17:29, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 09:49, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There are two points you make that I'd like to comment specifically on: OK. Memory is relevant to consciousness. It is relevant specifically to access consciousness

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 17:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 18:11, Flammarion wrote: On 1 Sep, 16:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:53, Flammarion wrote: That's another version of Platonia and therefore still an ontological

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 31 Aug, 21:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:31, Flammarion wrote: On 28 Aug, 16:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:46, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Aug, 08:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Aug 2009, at 10

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-01 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/1 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: David Nyman wrote: 2009/9/1 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I claim that that is a *possiblity* and as such is enough to show that CTM does not necessarily follow from

Re: Dreaming On

2009-09-02 Thread Flammarion
On 1 Sep, 23:48, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 Sep, 17:46, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: time capsules are just what I am talking about. Why would you need anythign more for the specious present than a snapshop some of which is out of date? Well, as well

  1   2   >