Sure. Here's the last exchange:
/Davic: As far as the contradiction is concerned, I think you've found
it for yourself. You've said many times that the number 2 has no
independent existence but must depend on there being 2 things. IOW, you
take the view that numbers are inferred only secondarily from objects
which, broadly, is the intuitionist position on mathematics. Fine, if so
for numbers, then equally so for computation. If computation is at root
an inference from the relations between objects, and at the same time
one holds that consciousness supervenes on those inferred relations,
then one has reasoned oneself around in a circle, and not a virtuous one
at that. Is it really intelligible to say that your mind supervenes on a
set of secondary relations that are themselves nothing other than a
product of its own powers of inference?/
///
//Brent: But on that account they are not "nothing other than" - the are
//*instantiated*//computational relations./
/
/
/David: Sorry, Brent, that doesn't help. AFAICT you're just dodging my
point. Could you respond in a way that isn't merely a verbal flourish?/
You didn't explain what point I was dodging. You said, "/Is it really
intelligible to say that your mind supervenes on a set of secondary
relations that are themselves nothing other than a product of its own
powers of inference?" / And insofar as I understand that, it seems to
say computationalism is incoherent because it would imply that mental
constructs supervene on themselves. First, that's not what I said. I
pointed out that I said they supervened on physical instantiation of
computation. Second, I don't see that saying mental constructs supervene
on other mental constructs is incoherent. There could be a hierarchy of
self-reflection.
Brent
On 4/27/2017 9:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Brent: We've just been through (again) finding there is no
contradiction between physics and arithmetic. Your answer seems to be
that physics can be an illusion of digital thought, therefore primary
physics is otiose. But thought can't be a consequence of physics
because....well you just don't see how it could be.
That's a bit quick. I've explained both the reversal and the
incompatibility. Then either you don't respond or your response
suggests you haven't grasped the point. Care to try again?
David
On 27/04/2017, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/27/2017 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there is a primary physical reality, you have to explain how it
drives the arithmetical consciousness flux. But how could it do that?
If it does it in a digitally simulable way, it cannot work (because
that is done in arithmetic too)
We've just been through (again) finding there is no contradiction
between physics and arithmetic. Your answer seems to be that physics
can be an illusion of digital thought, therefore primary physics is
otiose. But thought can't be a consequence of physics because....well
you just don't see how it could be.
Brent
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
