Re: The seven step series

2009-08-20 Thread meekerdb @dslextreme.com
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Hi, > > I give the solution of the first of the last exercises. ... > This motivates the definition of the following function from N to N, > called factorial. > factorial(0) = 1, and factorial(n) = n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3) * ... *1, if > is n

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/20 Jesse Mazer : > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg16244.html > and http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg16257.html Thanks, Jesse - I'll take a look. David > ...this notion of causal structure isn't totally developed and probab

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:23:51 -0700 > Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff > From: david.ny...@gmail.com > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > On 20 Aug, 10:09, Flammarion wrote: > > > > > OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal > > > > activity. > > > >

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi, I give the solution of the first of the last exercises. I reason aloud. I go slowly for those who did not get some math courses, or just forget them. I cannot stress the importance of the notion of bijection in the "mathematical discovery of the universal machine" (the quote means t

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
On 20 Aug, 10:09, Flammarion wrote: > > > OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal > > > activity. > > > But that is **precisely** the conclusion of the reductio that MGA > > proposes.  MGA claims precisely that - as you say - since it is > > implausible to justify

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/20 Flammarion : > > > On 20 Aug, 13:30, David Nyman wrote: >> On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> But also - just to dispose once and for all of this particular point - >> I want to be sure that you understand that I'm not arguing *for* >> eliminative materialism, except as devil'

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Aug 2009, at 14:30, David Nyman wrote: > > On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> Your second sentence answers the first one. Your paragraph above >> also. >> The current "seventh step series" is leading to the understanding of >> what is a computation, and a machine,

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:56:27 -0700 > Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff > From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > > > On 19 Aug, 21:49, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700 > > > Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff > > > From: peter

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 13:30, David Nyman wrote: > On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: > But also - just to dispose once and for all of this particular point - > I want to be sure that you understand that I'm not arguing *for* > eliminative materialism, except as devil's advocate (I'm sure you know > t

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread David Nyman
On 20 Aug, 10:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Aug 2009, at 02:07, David Nyman wrote: > > > > > > > 2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer : > > > I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation   > > is "a > > physical process taking place in brains and computer hardware".   > > T

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Aug 2009, at 10:46, Flammarion wrote: > > > > On 19 Aug, 16:41, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I don't see, indeed, how you can both define matter from >> contingent >> structures and still pretend that matter is primitive. >> > I am saying that material existence *is* continge

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 20 Aug, 02:23, David Nyman wrote: > 2009/8/19 Flammarion : > > > > > > > On 19 Aug, 13:35, David Nyman wrote: > > >> It doesn't.  It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it > >> is a posteriori compressed - for example into 'computational' language > >> - then this demands tha

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Aug 2009, at 02:07, David Nyman wrote: > > 2009/8/19 Jesse Mazer : > > I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation > is "a > physical process taking place in brains and computer hardware". > The > paraphrase argument - the one you said you agree

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 21:49, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700 > > Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff > > From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman wrote: > > > 009/8/19 Flammarion : > > > > >> I completely agree that

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Flammarion
On 19 Aug, 16:41, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I don't see, indeed, how you can both define matter from > contingent > structures and still pretend that matter is primitive. > > >>> I am saying that material existence *is* contingent > >>> existence. It is not a structure of anythin