On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
> > > > On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> That is the point. I should say that my starting position >>>> before encountering Bruno's views was against the tenability of >>>> CTM on >>>> the basis of any consistent notion of physical process. Bruno >>>> hasn't >>>> yet persuaded me that an explicitly non-computational theory of >>>> mind >>>> on some such basis is actually untenable. But he has awakened me >>>> to >>>> the reverse realisation that a non-materialist world-view can >>>> tenably >>>> be founded on CTM >> >>> coupled with Platonism. >> >> With respect, Peter, you continue to miss the point. What Bruno has >> demonstrated is that CTM as a mind-body theory (which is what UDA-8 >> shows it must be) makes no ontological commitment *by its very >> virtuality*. Or rather, any such commitment is shown to be vacuous. > > There's got to be somehting at the bottom of the stack. Bruno > wants to substitue matetr with Platonia as the substrate. > If there is nothing at the bottom > of the stack, there are no virtualisations running higher up. > >> Consequently under CTM, one is committed to RITSIAR=virtual, not >> RITSIAR=platonic. > > CTM only suggests that I *could* be virtualised. Alternatively > I could be running on the metal. I do wish you guys would undertand > that > Possible X => actually X > is a fallacy. So you have a problem with the indexical approach of time, and space. Of course it is the milk of the everything-list basic idea. And MGA, certainly not just MGA, shows that comp entails the indexical approach. Actually X is indeed just consistent X "as seen from inside". > >> Now, one obviously has the option *precisely in >> virtue of this* to dismiss CTM as itself vacuous. But this is the >> value of the insight: its force is to commit you to these explicit >> choices, and hence to cease vacillating between incompatible >> theoretical conjunctions. > > No incompatibility has been demonstrated. Given the references to text and posts, we are still waiting a justification of this statement. A scientist would say: your going from this line to this line is invalid for this reason. B. > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
