Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-13 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 13, 1:52 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know you can, of course. But what you are communicating is information derived from your 'seeing a square' in order for others to instantiate something analogous, as 1-person experiences of their own.I

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-12 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 11, 11:17 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi incommunicable) and we certainly don't know how to.So if I see a square, I can't communicate it? You know you can, of course. But what you are communicating is

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-12 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 11, 11:17 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi incommunicable) and we certainly don't know how to.So if I see a square, I can't communicate it? You know you can, of course. But what

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-12 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 13, 1:52 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know you can, of course. But what you are communicating is information derived from your 'seeing a square' in order for others to instantiate something analogous, as 1-person experiences of their own.I disagree. Squareness is fully

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-oct.-06, à 16:08, 1Z a écrit : If your Platonism is about truth, bot existence, you cannot show that matter is redundant, Ah! I am glad you see my argument is a redundancy argument. If comp is true we cannot rely on the hypothesis of primary matter to explain even just the

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 11-oct.-06, à 02:26, 1Z a écrit : David Nyman wrote: But this conclusion is, I think, why Bruno thinks that 'matter' has no real explanatory role in the account of conscious experience. This isn't quite equivalent to claiming that it can't be the primary reality, but rather to claim

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-oct.-06, à 22:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Bruno: you wrote: ...I do believe that 5 is equal to 1+1+1+1+1, ... Why not 1+1+1+1+1+1+1? Because it is equal to six. you had a notion somewhere in your mathemaitcally instructed mind that you have to stop at exactly the 5th

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 10-oct.-06, à 16:08, 1Z a écrit : If your Platonism is about truth, bot existence, you cannot show that matter is redundant, Ah! I am glad you see my argument is a redundancy argument. If comp is true we cannot rely on the hypothesis of primary matter to

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 10-oct.-06, à 16:08, 1Z a écrit : If your Platonism is about truth, bot existence, you cannot show that matter is redundant, Ah! I am glad you see my argument is a redundancy argument. If comp is true we cannot rely on the hypothesis of primary matter to

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: That's a redundancy argument, not an incompatibility argument. Yes. We somethigists have a redundancy argument of our own. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: That's a redundancy argument, not an incompatibility argument. Yes. We somethigists have a redundancy argument of our own. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 11, 5:11 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it isn't possible to determine by inspection that they are conscious.Are you claiming it's impossible in principle, or just that we don't know how? It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
On Oct 11, 5:11 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it isn't possible to determine by inspection that they are conscious.Are you claiming it's impossible in principle, or just that we don't know how? It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: On Oct 11, 5:11 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it isn't possible to determine by inspection that they are conscious.Are you claiming it's impossible in principle, or just that we don't know how? It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person

RE: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Colin Hales
snip unless you can eyeball it you're not being scientific). The subtlety with 'objective scientific evidence' is that ultimately it is delivered into the private experiences of indiividual scientists. Only agreement as to what is evidenced makes it 'objective'. So the privacy of

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 11, 5:11 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it isn't possible to determine by inspection that they are conscious.Are you claiming it's impossible in principle, or just that we don't know how? It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:35:05AM -0700, 1Z wrote: The idea that materialism is not compatible with computationalism is a bold and startling claim. Materialism comes in a couple of different flavours. The one that COMP is incompatible with is eliminative

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-oct.-06, à 23:56, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : ...But it's not. Lets talk about the object with this property of five in platonia as 5. Here in reality what we are doing is creating a label I and interpreting the label as a pointer to storage where the value in the storage

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 10, 2:51 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a claim of computationalism. I am just explaining how computationalism is compatible with physicalism. You are complaining about circularity, not contradiction! So you're saying that this variety of computationalism merely claims that

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-oct.-06, à 03:52, Russell Standish a écrit : On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:35:05AM -0700, 1Z wrote: The idea that materialism is not compatible with computationalism is a bold and startling claim. Materialism comes in a couple of different flavours. The one that COMP is incompatible

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 10, 2:51 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a claim of computationalism. I am just explaining how computationalism is compatible with physicalism. You are complaining about circularity, not contradiction! So you're saying that this variety of

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 10-oct.-06, à 03:52, Russell Standish a écrit : On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:35:05AM -0700, 1Z wrote: The idea that materialism is not compatible with computationalism is a bold and startling claim. Materialism comes in a couple of different flavours. The

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-oct.-06, à 23:56, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : ...But it's not. Lets talk about the object with this property of five in platonia as 5. Here in reality what we are doing is creating a label I and interpreting the label as a pointer to storage where the

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 10, 2:56 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you aren't in fact claiming this, then your appeal to 'computation' as picking out the relevant properties can be valid only in the context of *specific*, not generalised, instantiations, and thus becomes merely a shorthand for

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 10, 2:56 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you aren't in fact claiming this, then your appeal to 'computation' as picking out the relevant properties can be valid only in the context of *specific*, not generalised, instantiations, and thus becomes merely a shorthand for

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 10, 2:56 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you aren't in fact claiming this, then your appeal to 'computation' as picking out the relevant properties can be valid only in the context of *specific*, not generalised, instantiations, and thus becomes merely

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 10, 2:56 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you aren't in fact claiming this, then your appeal to 'computation' as picking out the relevant properties can be valid only in the context of *specific*, not generalised, instantiations, and thus becomes merely

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread jamikes
@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 5:56 PM Subject: Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;) LZ: Colin Hales wrote: I reached this position independently and you may think I'm nuts... I can't help what I see... is there something wrong

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 10, 2:51 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a claim of computationalism. I am just explaining how computationalism is compatible with physicalism. You are complaining about circularity, not contradiction! So you're saying that this variety of

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread jamikes
] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;) Le 09-oct.-06, à 23:56, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : ...But it's not. Lets talk about the object with this property of five in platonia

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux
] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;) Le 09-oct.-06, à 23:56, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : ...But it's not. Lets talk about the object with this property of five in platonia

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 10, 8:31 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, I would have to agree with Bruno that 'matter' is simply being deployed as a placeholder for relata,That's a feature, not a bug. and has no further explanatory role (except existence, of course - your sticking point, I

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 10, 9:12 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then a calculation of pi is picked out among all instantiations of all computations - but it is still possible to calculate pi many different ways on many different physical systems. And it is possible by inspection of these

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread Russell Standish
Ah yes - I was confusing my 'isms. Eliminative materialism is an extreme type of physicalism, but physicalism is broader. What I meant was what you just stated - COMP is incompatible with physicalism, but not with materialism. As I understand it, physicalism denies any form of downward

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: But this conclusion is, I think, why Bruno thinks that 'matter' has no real explanatory role in the account of conscious experience. This isn't quite equivalent to claiming that it can't be the primary reality, but rather to claim that it adds nothing to the accounts of

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-10 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 10, 9:12 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then a calculation of pi is picked out among all instantiations of all computations - but it is still possible to calculate pi many different ways on many different physical systems. And it is possible by

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 8, 6:29 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. But he says he isn't assuming Platonism, although he must be. Well, if he is, so what? If we allow him this, what then follows - isn't this more interesting? He claims that computationalism is incompatible with

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 9, 6:35 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a computation itself? A process? And algorithm? Bruno covers what he means by 'comp' pretty comprehensively in his various posts and papers. Using supplementary assumptions -- such as only activity counts. Not sure what you're getting

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
LZ: Colin Hales wrote: I reached this position independently and you may think I'm nuts... I can't help what I see... is there something wrong with this way of thinking? I don't see what you think a non-ideal number is. This deficit of mine includes having trouble with ALL numbers. :-) For

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread 1Z
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: LZ: Colin Hales wrote: I reached this position independently and you may think I'm nuts... I can't help what I see... is there something wrong with this way of thinking? I don't see what you think a non-ideal number is. This deficit of mine includes having

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread David Nyman
1Z wrote: Whatever properties are picked out by a computation will be relevant to it as a computation. Yes, of course. But how are these properties supposed to simultaneously produce a state of consciousness stably linked to the 'computation' when this self-same computation could have been

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: 1Z wrote: Whatever properties are picked out by a computation will be relevant to it as a computation. Yes, of course. But how are these properties supposed to simultaneously produce a state of consciousness stably linked to the 'computation' when this self-same

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:35:05AM -0700, 1Z wrote: The idea that materialism is not compatible with computationalism is a bold and startling claim. Materialism comes in a couple of different flavours. The one that COMP is incompatible with is eliminative materialism, also sometimes known as

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-08 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 7, 1:16 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Numbers that haven't been reified in any sense, don't exist in any way and therefore don't behave in any way. Forgive me for butting in again, but is there not some way to stop this particular disagreement from going

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-08 Thread 1Z
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: I reached this position independently and you may think I'm nuts... I can't help what I see... is there something wrong with this way of thinking? I don't see what you think a non-ideal number is. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-08 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 8, 6:29 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. But he says he isn't assuming Platonism, although he must be. Well, if he is, so what? If we allow him this, what then follows - isn't this more interesting? He claims that computationalism is incompatible with materialism. That is not

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-07 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: There is no need to reify the numbers. [...] I don't think so. Once you accept that the number theoretical truth is independent of you (which I take as a form of humility), then it can be explained quite precisely why numbers (in a third person view-view) are

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-07 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 7, 1:16 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Numbers that haven't been reified in any sense, don't exist in any way and therefore don't behave in any way. Forgive me for butting in again, but is there not some way to stop this particular disagreement from going round in circles

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-07 Thread markpeaty
Johnathan, Nice one! :-) As far as I can see there is nothing a-priori which would make these two hypotheses mutually exclusive; one 'cause' is predator related, the other is resource related. I await with interest, but not bated breath, for an ecologist to tell us of any empirical evidence

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Mark, Le 05-oct.-06, à 20:49, markpeaty a écrit : Bruno, I started to read [the English version of] your discourse on Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. I will read more later. It is certainly very interesting and thought provoking. It makes me think of 'Reasons and Persons' by

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-05 Thread markpeaty
Bruno, I started to read [the English version of] your discourse on Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. I will read more later. It is certainly very interesting and thought provoking. It makes me think of 'Reasons and Persons' by Derek Parfitt. His book is very dry in places but mostly very

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-05 Thread Johnathan Corgan
On Thu, October 5, 2006 11:49, markpeaty wrote: That said, I read with interest a year or two ago about certain kinds of insects [I think they are in North America somewhere] which lie dormant in the earth in some pre-adult stage for a PRIME number of years, 11, 13, were chosen by different

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 02-oct.-06, à 18:03, markpeaty a écrit : I hope you will excuse my butting in here, but I was passing through on a different mission and became disturbed by reading some earlier posts of this thread. You are welcome. My 2 cents worth: I tend to think that David Nyman has the more

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-02 Thread markpeaty
I hope you will excuse my butting in here, but I was passing through on a different mission and became disturbed by reading some earlier posts of this thread. My 2 cents worth: I tend to think that David Nyman has the more sceptically acceptable slant on this. Mathematics and logic are

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-13 Thread marc . geddes
But why can't it be reduced to classes of specific physical things? How can you show that it is necessary for anything corresponding to this description to 'exist' apart from its instantiations as documented procedures and actual occurrences of their application? David I did point out in my last

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-13 Thread 1Z
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why can't it be reduced to classes of specific physical things? How can you show that it is necessary for anything corresponding to this description to 'exist' apart from its instantiations as documented procedures and actual occurrences of their application?

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-13 Thread David Nyman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did point out in my last post that there appears to be no simple way to make such reductions (between math concepts and classes of specific things). For instance no one has yet succeeded in showing how math concepts such as infinite sets and transfinite sets

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-13 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did point out in my last post that there appears to be no simple way to make such reductions (between math concepts and classes of specific things). For instance no one has yet succeeded in showing how math concepts such as infinite sets

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-13 Thread John M
Peter; I try to keep out from the ongoing discussions lately (no succes to report) but sometimes I get carried away. I will barge in with 2 remarks into your text below John M --- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Nyman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did point out in my last

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-13 Thread marc . geddes
David Nyman wrote: I fail to see any 'knock-down' character in this argument. Peter says that mathematical concepts don't refer to anything 'external', and on one level I agree with him. But they are surely derived from the contingent characteristics of experience, and AFAICS experience in

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-12 Thread David Nyman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) A general mathematical category is not the same as any specific physical thing But why can't it be reduced to classes of specific physical things? How can you show that it is necessary for anything corresponding to this description to 'exist' apart from its

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-12 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this only shows that mathematical objects exist in the sense that chair exists; as a abstraction from chairs. So chair isn't identical with any particular chair. Brent Meeker What follows is actually a very important and profound metaphysical point,

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-09-12 Thread 1Z
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mathematical concepts are quite different. The key difference is that we *cannot* in fact dispense with mathematical descriptions and replace them with something else. We cannot *eliminate* mathematical concepts from our theories like we can with say 'chair'