> > But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a >> diameter. >> >> >> This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the "platonic perfect circle"? Or >> about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and a compass? >> > > Roger: A physically realized circle. > > > I doubt this exist. And with computationalism, I doubt this makes sense. >
Roger: Draw a circle on a chalkboard, and it exists outside the head. The concept of a perfect circle exists inside the mind/head. ----------------------- > > I don't know any one not believing in the arithmetical reality, even > philosophers (which sometimes claims that they does not admit them, but > eventually betray themselves. > > Not everybody agrees that it is enough for explaining consciousness and > the physical reality, but most everyday concept (like forever, while, > again, anniversary, death, everyday, ...) assumes the intuition needed for > agreeing on the elementary arithmetical axioms. > Roger: To think that almost everyone believes in an arithmetical reality is to ignore parts of philosophy like physicalism, nominalism, etc. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Platonism in Metaphysics" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/) "...Of course, platonism about any of these kinds of objects is controversial. Many philosophers do not believe in abstract objects at all..." While many on this list seem to believe in it, not even everyone here seems to buy into it. It's one idea among many. As I've said many times, let's all work our models and see what progress we can make. ----------------------- > Roger: As above, a physically realized circle. > > > I really doubt you could realize a circle in nature. Only an > approximation, and then I am not sure if nature is not in the head of the > Turing machines and relative numbers. > > So you take as axioms that there is a primary physical universe. I do not. > To better tackle the mind-body problem, it is better to be agnostic on > this, and open to the idea that such a primary physical universe might not > exist. > Roger: I can accept any idea including arithmetical reality as long as there's more logic and evidence for it than for other ideas. That's what I call being an agnostic. I haven't seen or read anything here or elsewhere that has convinced me of arithmetical reality as opposed to other ideas. Mostly, I see unfounded assertions, claims and assumptions. Many might say that about my arguments, too, I admit. Overall, what I take is that whatever exists, whether it's called mental, abstract, physical, inside the mind, outside the mind, etc., it still exists. "Mental", "arithmetical reality", "abstract", "physical", etc. are all just labels for existent entities. I live in a universe made of existent entities, whatever they're called. My goal in my thinking is to try and figure out why there are existent entities instead of no existent entities (e.g. the "something" versus "nothing" question) and to use that thinking to build a model of what the universe seems to look like and to hopefully make testable predictions. Of course, I'm a long way from that but am working on it. I've summarized my thinking at my website and at this list. Overall, you don't believe in a primary physical universe. That's great, and I'm happy for you. I do. As always, we'll all take our thinking, work our models and see what progress can be made. And, good luck to everyone! ---------------------------- > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
