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

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 by

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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:15, Flammarion wrote: When discussing fundamental science, no use of the word exist should be taken literally. Fine. Then I am not literally being simulated by an immateial UD. If you want. But my point is that NO use of the word exist should be taken

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 10:28, Flammarion wrote: 1. Something that ontologically

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: 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. But

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: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 by something else that does 2. I ontologically exist 3. According

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
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-theoretical truth have to be redefined as theoretical possibilities

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
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, if it;s tacit you wouldn't find a trace. I wake up this

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
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, if it;s tacit you wouldn't find a trace. If I use this

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: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote: 1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or generated by something else that does 2. I ontologically exist 3. According to you, I am generated by the UD 4. Therefore the UD must ontologically exist. Step 4 is really step 0

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:26, Flammarion wrote: I understand both your discomfort with arithmetical realism and your defence of PM, but this discussion hinges on CTM +PM = true. Couldn't we try to focus on the validity or otherwise of this claim? OK. It's invalid because you can't have

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: ... We might call these three notions of existence Q-existence, M- existence and C-existence for short. My argument with you has been that even if one wishes to postulate a single universe, M-existence is an unnecessary middleman and doesn't even seem well-defined, all we

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:13:54 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff Flammarion wrote: ... We might call these three notions of existence Q-existence, M- existence and C-existence for short. My argument with you

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 Quentin Anciaux
2009/8/21 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: 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

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 into

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: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread David Nyman
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 was pursuing the same conclusion that you attribute to Dennett as

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 was

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 don't see any evidence for that I am explaining this right

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread David Nyman
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.  But it's a false distinction, as I point out below. But also - just

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 Bruno Marchal
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 physical process taking place in brains and computer hardware. The paraphrase argument - the one you said you agreed with

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 into

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Aug 2009, at 10:46, Flammarion wrote: 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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
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 physical process taking place in brains and computer hardware.  

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

2009-08-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:56:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Aug 2009, at 14:30, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Your second sentence answers the first one. Your paragraph above also. The current seventh step series is leading to the understanding of what is a computation, and a machine, for a

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/20 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: 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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
On 20 Aug, 10:09, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal activity. But that is **precisely** the conclusion of the reductio that MGA proposes.  MGA claims precisely that - as you say - since it is implausible to

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:23:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: david.ny...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 20 Aug, 10:09, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal activity

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/20 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg16244.html and http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg16257.html Thanks, Jesse - I'll take a look. David ...this notion of causal structure isn't totally

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 arithmetical P. Jone(s) will also find a correct argumentation

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 by

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 Quentin Anciaux
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 a role to matter, you will have to make your consciousness of

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 not

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 Quentin Anciaux
2009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: That is never going to get you further than mathematical existence. You still need the futher step of showing mathematical existence is ontological RITISAR existence. So you would accept to be turned into a program as long as you're running on

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
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 agreed with - asserts that *any* human concept is *eliminable* No,

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/19 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 not coincide with any proper subset of the class of computational

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
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 different form.  Peter's position I think is that 1) and 2) are

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 develop a correct argumentation that you are material, and that

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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/Olympia). I've also argued this, in a somewhat different form.

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:58, Flammarion wrote: I think *you* believe in magic. You believe that if you write down hypothetical truths about what an immaterial machine would believe, you can conclude that everything has been conjured up by an immaterial machine. I don't proceed in that way at

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: On 18 Aug, 18:26, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: Single-universe thinking is a different game from everythingism. It is not about explaining everything from logical first priciples. It accepts contingency as the price paid for

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: 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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
On 19 Aug, 16:41, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am sorry Peter, but CTM + PM just does not work, and it is a good   news, because if we keep CTM, we get a sort of super generalization of   Darwin idea that things evolve. We still don't have a definite response from Peter as to

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: david.ny...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:03:39 +0100 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation is a physical process taking place

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

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

2009-08-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
Seems like this post didn't go through, so I'll resend it: 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

2009-08-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
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 peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I completely agree that **assuming

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Aug 2009, at 19:23, David Nyman wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:41, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am sorry Peter, but CTM + PM just does not work, and it is a good news, because if we keep CTM, we get a sort of super generalization of Darwin idea that things evolve. We still

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.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 agreed with - asserts that *any* human concept is *eliminable*

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 is that only one of the above can be true (i.e. CTM and

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/19 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: 1) What motivates the assumption of different theoretical postulates of primitiveness, contingency and necessity? Is that question really important? It is a bit a private question. Typical motivation for comp, are that it is very plausible under a

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/19 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 agreed with - asserts that *any* human concept is *eliminable*

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
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 into 'computational' language - then this demands that it be *capable* of

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 matter. The notion of computation and computability have been

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.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 agreed with - asserts that *any* human concept is

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you

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 Bruno Marchal
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 that the numbers described or explain. But what is this primary

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 be

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:44, Flammarion wrote: 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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 that 3-I is real? The 1-I reality (my consciousness) is

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 Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
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 clearly has reference, as I think does Bruno. Any Platonists

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 that

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

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 Bruno Marchal
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 that is not affected by juggling one theory for another. I have

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 Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 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

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
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 03:01:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 Aug 2009, at 11:59, Flammarion wrote: 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

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 this is taught in school, and its enough to justified the existence of

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal 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 the UDA is based on Plat., not the other

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal 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 that the numbers described or explain. But

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 Aug 2009, at 19:17, Brent Meeker wrote: Some posts ago, you seem to accept arithmetical realism, so I am no more sure of your position. I may have assented to the *truth* of some propositions... but truth is not existence. At least, the claim that truth=existence is extraordinary

  1   2   >