Re: Dreaming On

Brent, Another example of your somewhat non-standard "definition 2" usage: > First of all I think epistemology precedes ontology. We first get > knowledge of some facts and then we create an ontology as part > of a theory to explain these facts. On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Rex Allen wr

Re: Dreaming On

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > I think that's a misuse of "ontology". When we discuss the atomic theory of > matter the ontology is a set of elementary particles, including their > couplings > and dynamics. I think most of us are using "ontology" in the sense of defi

Re: Dreaming On

David Nyman wrote: > 2009/7/27 Brent Meeker > >> That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting. I've never heard anyone claim >> that >> the mind is the brain. The materialist claim is that the mind is what the >> brain does, i.e. the mind is a process. That's implicit in COMP, the idea >> t

Re: Dreaming On

http://www.mindmatter.de/mmabstracts7_1.htm *Intentionality and Computationalism: A Diagonal Argument * Laureano Luna Cabanero, Department of Philosophy, IES Francisco Marin, Siles, Spain, and Christopher G. Small, Department of Statistics and Actua

Re: Seven Step Series

2009/7/27 Bruno Marchal : > Actually, the real axiom is a self-duplicability principle. According > to the duplicability, you will have the whole of AUDA remaining > correct and even complete, at the propositional level, for many > "gods" (non emulable entities). The theology of the machine van b

Re: Dreaming On

2009/7/27 Brent Meeker : >>> So the brain (i.e. what the eye can see) can't be the mind; but the >>> intuition remains that mind and brain might be correlated by some >>> inclusive conception that would constitute our ontology: Kant's great >>> insight stands. > > It's more than an intuition. Th

Re: Dreaming On

2009/7/27 Brent Meeker > That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting. I've never heard anyone claim > that > the mind is the brain. The materialist claim is that the mind is what the > brain does, i.e. the mind is a process. That's implicit in COMP, the idea > that > functionally identical

Re: The seven step series

Hi, OK, I will come back on the square root of 2 later. We have talked on sets. Sets have elements, and elements of a set define completely the set, and a set is completely defined by its elements. Example: here is a set of numbers {1, 2, 3} and a set of sets of numbers {{1, 2}, {3}, { }}.

Re: The seven step series

On 27 Jul 2009, at 16:07, ronaldheld wrote: > > I am following, but have not commented, because there is nothing > controversal. Cool. Even the sixth first steps of UDA? > > When you are done, can your posts be consolidated into a paper or a > document that can be read staright through? I

Re: Dreaming On

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 Jul 2009, at 16:52, David Nyman wrote: > >> Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and >> machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your >> helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of >> my under

Re: Seven Step Series

On 27 Jul 2009, at 16:25, David Nyman wrote: > > On 27 July, 09:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> ... yet, the shadows of braids and links(*) appear somehow in the two >> matter hypostases, and this in a context where space (not juts time) >> has to be a self-referential context, in that weak sense

Re: Dreaming On

On 27 Jul 2009, at 14:57, David Nyman wrote: > > On 27 July, 09:31, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> The UDA is a reasoning which shows that once we postulate an >> "ontological" physical universal, it is impossible to recover the >> first person from it > > Do you mean to say that we can't recover t

Re: Seven Step Series

On 27 July, 09:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ... yet, the shadows of braids and links(*) appear somehow in the two > matter hypostases, and this in a context where space (not juts time) > has to be a self-referential context, in that weak sense, such work > seems to go in the right direction. Of co

Re: The seven step series

Bruno: I am following, but have not commented, because there is nothing controversal. When you are done, can your posts be consolidated into a paper or a document that can be read staright through? Ronald On Jul 23, 9:28 am, Bruno Mar

Re: Dreaming On

On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones wrote: > >> Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what "RITSIAR" means? I > >> cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it. On a (slightly) more serious note, to the best of my recollection the expression 'real in the sense I am real' w

Re: Dreaming On

On 27 July, 09:31, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The UDA is a reasoning which shows that once we postulate an > "ontological" physical universal, it is impossible to recover the > first person from it Do you mean to say that we can't recover the 1-person from a physical universe on the assumption tha

Re: Dreaming On

On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones wrote: > Hopefully, by the end of this "conversation > without end" I will know in what sense I am real!! Don't count on it ;-) D > On 27/07/2009, at 11:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > > > > > Hi Kim, > > > RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am real. > > > Ch

Re: Dreaming On

On 27 July, 02:45, Colin Hales wrote: > The assumption in your comments is that there is/needs to be 'mind > stuff' is wrong. /ALL/ of it is "some undescribed stuff", not just that > resulting in mind. The assumption in your statement is that we need > something extra just to explain mind pres

Re: Dreaming On

On 27/07/2009, at 11:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > Hi Kim, > > RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am real. > > Cheers > Brian > > Kim Jones wrote: >> >> Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what "RITSIAR" means? I >> cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it

Re: Seven Step Series

On 27 Jul 2009, at 03:04, m.a. wrote: > Bruno, > I am indeed ready to pursue further and since we'll be > covering both topics anyhow, I would prefer that you choose which > would be the most natural next step for us. Hmm... The problem is that it is natural or not according to

Re: Dreaming On

On 26 Jul 2009, at 16:52, David Nyman wrote: > > Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and > machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your > helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of > my understanding of the main points t