2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer <[email protected]>: >> > >> 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, reducible, not eliminable. That is an important distinction. >> > >> > Not in this instance. The whole thrust of the paraphrase argument is >> > precisely to show - in principle at least - that the reduced concept >> > can be *eliminated* from the explanation. You can do this with >> > 'life', so you should be prepared to do it with 'computation'. >> >> Showing that a word can be removed from a verbal formulation >> by substitution with s synonym is not *ontological* elimination. > > Of course it is--*according to the Quinean definition of ontology*. The > strange thing about your mode of argument is that you talk as though a word > like "existence" has some single true correct meaning, and that anyone who > uses it differently is just wrong--do you disagree with the basic premise > that the meaning of words is defined solely by usage and/or definitions? If > so, do you agree that there are in fact different ways this word is defined > by real people, even if we restrict our attention to the philosophical > community? > Provided you agree with that, your posts would be a lot less confusing if > you would distinguish between different definitions and state which one you > meant at a given time--for example, one might say "I agree numbers have > Quinean existence but I think they lack material existence, or > existence in the sense that intelligent beings that appear in mathematical > universes are actually conscious beings > with their own qualia". 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 need to > do is postulate that out of all the mathematically possible universes that > have Q-existence, only one has C-existence.
So someone else noticed Peter dodging the consequences of what he originally claimed with respect to Quinean paraphrase! Thanks. David > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
