David,
Le 17-juin-07, à 18:28, David Nyman a écrit : > IMHO this semantic model gives you a knock-down argument against > 'computationalism', *unless* one identifies (I'm hoping to hear from > Bruno on this) the 'primitive' entities and operators with those of > the number realm - i.e. you make numbers and their relationships the > 'primitive base'. But crucially, you must still take these entities > and their relationships to be the *real* basis of personal-world > 'grasp'. If you continue to adopt a 'somethingist' view, then no > 'program' (i.e. one of the arbitrarily large set that could be imputed > to any 'something') could coherently be responsible for its personal- > world grasp (such as it may be). This is the substance of the UDA > argument. All personal-worlds must emerge internally via recursive > levels of relationship inherited from primitive grasp: in a > 'somethingist' view, such grasp must reside with a primitive > 'something', as we have seen, and in a computationalist view, it must > reside in the number realm. But the fundamental insight applies. I agree completely, but I am not yet convinced that you appreciate my methodological way of proceeding. I have to ask you questions, but I see you have been prolific during the Siena congress, which is not gentle for my mailbox :). Anyway I will take some time to read yours' and the others' posts before asking for questions that others have perhaps asked and that you have perhaps already answered. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
