> > > The starting question is this: are you OK with the idea that we would not > see any difference from our first person point of view with an artificial > digital brain (copying the brain at some level of description). Putting him > roughly: do you accept the idea that the brain is a sort of (natural) > machine/computer (like the heart is accepted to be a natural pump)? > > 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. > > All what I say is derived from the assumption that the brain or the body > is Turing emulable at a level such that if we turing-emulate it, you would > not see the difference subjectively. It is my working assumption. > > Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the simulation that is us exists as does the computer and the code we're a simulation in. My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent entities.
-------------------------- > 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. > > You add metaphysics where there is none. Did you go out of the classroom at school when they mentioned the existence of the even numbers, or of the prime numbers? Roger :It's unclear to me how wanting logic and evidence (mostly just evidence) for an idea is adding metaphysics. -------------------------- > > My assumption is that there is no magic operating in the brain. > Roger: I'd agree that there's no magic operating in the brain or anywhere else. -------------------------- > 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. > > > I have never say that I don't believe in a primary physical universe. I am > agnostic. All what I say is that IF computationalism is correct, THEN there > is no primary physical universe (playing any role related to my > consciousness, to be more precise (we still needs some amount of Occam to > get rid of it)). > > So, if you assume a primitive physical universe (related to our > consciousness), then you derive from my argument that computationalism is > false. There is some actual infinities, and non computable one, and non FPI > recovrable one, playing in the brain. But this seems using a string > ontological commitment to avoid an explanation. It is a bit like a > creationist saying "I am OK that natural selection explains a lot, but let > us be clear, it completely fails to explain how God made this in six days". > > As always, we'll all take our thinking, work our models and see what > progress can be made. And, good luck to everyone! > > > Good luck to you too. Can you recall me you website? > > Roger: I'm also agnostic on all of this. I lean towards the idea that our universe is at its most fundamental level, composed of physically existent entities and am building a model based on it, but if someone can provide me with enough evidence that the computationalism or any other idea is better, I'm willing to switch. I just haven't seen that evidence here or elsewhere. For me, I'd need evidence of why arithmetical propositions exist rather than not exist in order to change my model. As many of us do, I feel like I have a solution that makes sense to me for why there are existent entities rather than there not being existent entities. I base my thinking on this. A summary is at: https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/ and a more detailed explanation along with more philosophical stuff and a beginning model is at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ (click on 3rd link down) While we are working on different models, it's been a great discussion. Thanks. > > > > > ---------------------------- > >> >> >> > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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.
