Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 23 Sep 2009, at 18:48, Flammarion wrote: He hasn';t made it clear that he is positing Platonism as having expalntory value. Half the time he denies he is positing Platonism at all. And when he seeks to justify it, he makes brief comments to the effect that is self-evident that 7 exists

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 01:19, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/23 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Some people can argue that MGA is not needed. They believe that it is obvious that consciousness is not something material at all, and that it is a waste of time of both trying

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 02:10, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/23 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I thought you had denied that you were seeking some ultimate metaphysically primitive justification, rather than defining a particular set of constraints on the theoretical entities to

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 02:28, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 1:10 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: No it's what a program is... Would you be different if instantiated on a x86 computer than on an ARM based one ? There's a difference between being independent

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 07:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: CTM has enough physical commitment to keep a whole bunch of phsycalists happy. In fact i can;t see many Ai research types being happy at retaining CTM only if phsycical realism is abandoned. But then it is a moot point since

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: The idealist defence agaisnt these refutations always involves things being arranged just so so as to givew he imitation of a material world with minds supervening on brains. And it doesn't give a good reason why things should be just so. It's a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread david.nyman
2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: AFAICS nobody has been arguing that any metaphysical posit is an a priori truth. The claim that CTM entails the posit of AR is the consequence of a reasoned argument. The alternative is that CTM is false on the posit of PM. You seem to be

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread David Nyman
On Sep 24, 2:44 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Of course Johnson's refutation didn't change any idealist minds, but he pointed to the use of operational definitions as the basis of science which ultimately had a lot more influence than Berkeley. That is very true. The

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread David Nyman
On Sep 24, 9:39 am, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Could you either state clearly what work this label is supposed to do, beyond the posit of AR on an abductive basis that we have already agreed on, or drop your insistence on it? I have explained that several times. It clarifies

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 16:01, david.nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: AFAICS nobody has been arguing that any metaphysical posit is an a priori truth. The claim that CTM entails the posit of AR is the consequence of a reasoned argument. The alternative

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 16:48, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 24, 9:39 am, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Could you either state clearly what work this label is supposed to do, beyond the posit of AR on an abductive basis that we have already agreed on, or drop your

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: You seem to be assuming a workign MGA Actually I'm only assuming my own argument contra the physical intelligibility of CTM, I haven't seen you give an argument that CTM is incompatible with phsycalism, only that CTM wouldn't give the seame

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: But this is the very hinge of disagreement. CTM's Trojan Horse is the incoherence of its posit of materialism. Accordign to whom? It's demonstrably as dependant on AR as comp is; What is dependent on AR? Materialism? CTM. But you still won't

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 18:16, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: You seem to be assuming a workign MGA Actually I'm only assuming my own argument contra the physical intelligibility of CTM, I haven't seen you give an argument that CTM is

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Flammarion
On 24 Sep, 18:17, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/24 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: But this is the very hinge of disagreement. CTM's Trojan Horse is the incoherence of its posit of materialism. Accordign to whom? It's demonstrably as dependant on AR as comp is;

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Sep 2009, at 10:35, Flammarion wrote: Platonism=AR. To be precise, Platonism disambiguates AR as an ontological commitment and not just a commitment to mind-independent truth. So Platonism is different from AR. comp (CTM) assumes AR, not platonism. UDA uses AR, not Platonism. UDA uses

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:07, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there? Instead of linking

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 20:12, Flammarion wrote: On 21 Sep, 08:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote: So does being pure thought mean without a reference, i.e. a fiction? As in Sherlock Holmes is a pure thought? Consider the Many world

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 23:32, m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Flammarion
On 23 Sep, 06:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 20:15, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 19:08, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 4:46

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Flammarion
On 23 Sep, 07:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:07, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does   not invoke

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread ronaldheld
in TOS: the enemy within On stardate 1672.1, in 2266, a strange ore had altered the function of the transporter, causing one of the most bizarre transporter accidents on record, in which Captain James T. Kirk was split into two separate entities. No mention of where the extra matter came from. in

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: One might indeed adduce this distinction in preferring one approach over the other, but it isn't forced. Indeed, in the case of the MGA, if one accepts the deduction and retains one's commitment to CTM, then the abduction is only to be expected.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread m.a.
, 2009 8:10 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology in TOS: the enemy within On stardate 1672.1, in 2266, a strange ore had altered the function of the transporter, causing one of the most bizarre transporter accidents on record, in which Captain James T. Kirk was split into two

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 23 Sep 2009, at 10:39, Flammarion wrote: Also, what is primary matter and where does it comes from, and why does it organize into living being if it is propertyless? It only lacks essential properties. It can have any property as an accident. Then it needs the essential property of

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread m.a.
, Quine and Carnap on ontology 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: One might indeed adduce this distinction in preferring one approach over the other, but it isn't forced. Indeed, in the case of the MGA, if one accepts the deduction and retains one's commitment to CTM

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread David Nyman
david.ny...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: One might indeed adduce this distinction in preferring one approach over the other, but it isn't

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux
in this thread? (e.g. CTM, PM, UD etc.)* ** ** ** - Original Message - From: David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread David Nyman
On Sep 22, 7:47 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Some people can argue that MGA is not needed. They believe that it is obvious that consciousness is not something material at all, and that it is a waste of time of both trying to attach consciousness to matter, or to argue

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: One might indeed adduce this distinction in preferring one approach over the other, but it isn't forced. Indeed, in the case of the MGA, if one accepts the deduction and retains one's

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Flammarion
On 23 Sep, 13:12, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno argues that an experiential-computational type can't be plausibly associated with one of its valid physical tokens in at least one case. He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is not

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread m.a.
23, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 23 Sep 2009, at 16:36, m.a. wrote: Would anyone care to provide a gloss to all the capital letter codes being used in this thread? (e.g. CTM, PM, UD etc.) CTM = computational theory of mind Comp

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread m.a.
, marty a. - Original Message - From: David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:48 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology 2009

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Flammarion
On 23 Sep, 15:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Sep 2009, at 10:39, Flammarion wrote: Also, what is primary matter and where does it comes from, and why does it organize into living being if it is propertyless? It only lacks essential properties. It can have any

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Flammarion
On 23 Sep, 16:10, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 7:47 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Some people can argue that MGA is not needed. They believe that it is obvious that consciousness is not something material at all, and that it is a waste of time

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/23 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Some people can argue that MGA is not needed. They believe that it is obvious that consciousness is not something material at all, and that it is a waste of time of both trying to attach consciousness to matter, or to argue with those who

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/23 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I thought you had denied that you were seeking some ultimate metaphysically primitive justification, rather than defining a particular set of constraints on the theoretical entities to be deployed in a particular research programme. I have been

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread David Nyman
On Sep 22, 1:10 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: No it's what a program is... Would you be different if instantiated on a x86 computer than on an ARM based one ? There's a difference between being independent of any specific instantiation and being independent of all

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-23 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/9/23 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Some people can argue that MGA is not needed. They believe that it is obvious that consciousness is not something material at all, and that it is a waste of time of both trying to attach consciousness to matter, or to argue

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Bruno and others, here is how a Star Trek transporter work(taken from Memory Alpha): A typical transport sequence began with a coordinate lock, during which the destination was verified

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote: *And when pressed as to exactly how the Heisenberg compensators worked, the spokesman replied, Very well, thank you.* :) That's the problem. Star strek teleportation has been invented well before Bennett Al. discovered

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Sep, 00:26, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yep, and if the conclusion is ontological, the process that reaches it is ontological. Bruno thinks he can reach an ontological assumption starting with pure maths. But he can't.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Sep, 00:31, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 17, 11:17 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Has it?  I thought we were discussing whether CTM made any meaningful commitments as a physical theory, not whether physics can or can't include consciousness per

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 18 Sep, 08:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I start from pure cognitive science. Saying yes to the doctor is not   pure math. Saying yes to the doctor does not show that i am being run on an immateial UD. The existence of an immaterial UD needs to be argued separately.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Quentin Anciaux
It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists (mathematically) independantly of any of it's instantiation. Regards, Quentin 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 18 Sep, 08:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I start from pure cognitive science.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists (mathematically) independantly of any of it's instantiation. Such existence is blatant Platonism. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists (mathematically) independantly of any of it's instantiation. Such existence is blatant Platonism. No it's what a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 12:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists (mathematically) independantly of any of it's

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Is mathematic dependant on human being from your point of view ? That's what I understand. 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 12:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 13:15, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Is mathematic dependant on human being from your point of view ? That's what I understand. Yes, exactly. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: But surely what is 'literally' the case depends critically on one's starting assumptions. If one starts with a theoretical commitment to the primacy of the physical, then the status of mathematics is obviously rendered formal or metaphorical with

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 14:37, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: But surely what is 'literally' the case depends critically on one's starting assumptions. If one starts with a theoretical commitment to the primacy of the physical, then the status

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:50, Flammarion wrote: No he doesn't. His arguments have to assume Platonism as well as CTM. CTM needs Church thesis (to define the C of CTM). This requires Arithmetical Realism, that is the belief that classical logic can be applied in the number realm. (and there

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:57, Flammarion wrote: On 18 Sep, 08:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I start from pure cognitive science. Saying yes to the doctor is not pure math. Saying yes to the doctor does not show that i am being run on an immateial UD. That is why I use a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 15:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:50, Flammarion wrote: No he doesn't. His arguments have to assume Platonism as well as CTM. CTM needs Church thesis (to define the C of CTM). This requires Arithmetical Realism, that is the belief that

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 08:37, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote: *And when pressed as to exactly how the Heisenberg compensators worked, the spokesman replied, Very well, thank you.* :) That's the problem. Star strek teleportation has been

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there? Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there? Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities. You are in a third person way. If you are a program relatively to any real world, you are 'executed' infinitely often

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities. You are in a third person way. That is still not possible

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:18, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there? Instead of linking [the

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities. You are in a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread David Nyman
On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no problem attaching consc to PM. What do you mean by this? David On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there? Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 17:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no problem attaching consc to PM. What do you mean by this? since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties, there is nothing to stop qualia being attached to

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no problem attaching consc to PM. What do you mean by this? since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties,

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 21 Sep, 08:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote: So does being pure thought mean without a reference, i.e. a fiction? As in Sherlock Holmes is a pure thought? Consider the Many world theory of Everett, or the many histories of

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:22, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 17:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 19:08, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no problem attaching consc to PM. What do you

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities. You are in a third person way. If you are a program relatively to any real world, you are

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/22 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote: He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities. You are in a third person way. If you

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties, there is nothing to stop qualia being attached to it. If there were, that would be a property. In what might such attachment consist, in you view, beyond the mere assertion of its possibility?

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread m.a.
- Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote: *And when pressed as to exactly

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Flammarion
On 22 Sep, 19:56, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties, there is nothing to stop qualia being attached to it. If there were, that would be a property. In what might such attachment

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2009, at 20:15, Flammarion wrote: On 22 Sep, 19:08, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote: So does being pure thought mean without a reference, i.e. a fiction? As in Sherlock Holmes is a pure thought? Consider the Many world theory of Everett, or the many histories of comp. Does it make sense to say that Sherlock Holmes exists in

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-21 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote: So does being pure thought mean without a reference, i.e. a fiction? As in Sherlock Holmes is a pure thought? Consider the Many world theory of Everett, or the many histories of comp. Does it make sense to say that

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-21 Thread ronaldheld
Bruno and others, here is how a Star Trek transporter work(taken from Memory Alpha): A typical transport sequence began with a coordinate lock, during which the destination was verified and programmed, via the targeting scanners. Obtaining or maintaining a transporter lock enables the

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-21 Thread m.a.
: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Bruno and others, here is how a Star Trek transporter work(taken from Memory Alpha): A typical transport sequence began with a coordinate lock, during which the destination was verified and programmed, via the targeting scanners. Obtaining or maintaining

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-20 Thread m.a.
- Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:49 PM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Marty, On 19 Sep 2009, at 02:37, m.a. wrote: I don't really remember what saying yes to the doctor entails. If it signifies a willingness to be cloned by computation, shouldn't we be saying yes to the Star Trek technician who controls the transporter? m.a. I am not

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-19 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:35, David Nyman wrote: 2009/9/17 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Then for the inside/personal views, the whole of human math including Cantor paradise cannot be enough to describe the human mind. It is more general: In that case, what light does the comp approach

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Sep 2009, at 23:55, Flammarion wrote: On 17 Sep, 00:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: The knowabilitry of a claim about what powers numbers have can only depend on what labels are correctly attached. Petrol is not flammable

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-18 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Sep, 17:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/17 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Then for the inside/personal views, the whole of human math including Cantor paradise cannot be enough to describe the human mind. It is more general: In that case, what light does

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-18 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 18:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Sep 2009, at 17:25, Flammarion wrote: On 16 Sep, 15:51, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: the ocean of virtual particles which may give rise to all real particles exists somewhere between matter and   thought. I see

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-18 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/18 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: In that case, what light does the comp approach shed on the 'causal significance' of the inside view - i.e. with reference to the presumed 'causal closure' of the physical narrative and the supposed epiphenominalism or over-determination of

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-18 Thread m.a.
...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:10 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology SNIP... That is why I insist so much on the fact that saying yes to the doctor ask for an act of faith, then all what I say becomes relatively explainable

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 21:42, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 16 Sep, 15:51

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Sep 2009, at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote: m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 16 Sep

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/17 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Then for the inside/personal views, the whole of human math including Cantor paradise cannot be enough to describe the human mind. It is more general: In that case, what light does the comp approach shed on the 'causal significance' of the inside

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Sep, 00:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: The knowabilitry of a claim about what powers numbers have can only depend on what labels are correctly attached. Petrol is not flammable just becaue I attached the label flammable

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Sep, 00:02, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Has it?  I thought we were discussing whether CTM made any meaningful commitments as a physical theory, not whether physics can or can't include consciousness per se.  Now you raise the question, I don't believe it can, simply

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Sep, 14:12, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 16 Sep, 21:42, m.a

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yep, and if the conclusion is ontological, the process that reaches it is ontological. Bruno thinks he can reach an ontological assumption starting with pure maths. But he can't. mathematical existence means that mathematicians take certain

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread m.a.
- Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 17 Sep, 14:12, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-17 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 17 Sep, 14:12, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 15 Sep, 19:21, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/14 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: They don't exist physically. They do exist mathematically. It is all what is used. You mean they exist Platonically. For formlalists, such existence is a mere metaphor and has no

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 01:48, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:46 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 15 Sep, 15:19, m.a

  1   2   >