Thanks. How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence hypothesis fit or not fit into this?
Bruno Marchal wrote: > The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion, > which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with > Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which > can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist > hypothesis in the cognitive science. > > In a nutshell, it is the problem of how a qualitative experiential > feeling of consciousness can be associated with third personal object > relations. How a grey brain makes us feel color, if you want. And then > it touches question like "does consciousness have a role?", "is there > a first person death", etc. > > You can Google on it on the web, but in this list we are far in advance :) > > Most people still believe simultaneously in MECHANISM, and WEAK > MATERIALISM (the idea that stuffy matter exists). My point is that > iMECHANISM and MATERIALISM (or PHYSICALISM) are epistemologically > incompatible. Mech + Mater. leads to person eliminativism. Mech itself > leads, by UDA, to a material appearance emerging from infinite sum of > purely mathematical computations. UDA shows that computationalism > leads to refutable facts, and one of my main point is that > computationalism (or digital mechanism) is empirically testable, and > indeed confirmed (not proved!) in his most startling features by > quantum mechanics. Digitalism makes the mind-body problem a throughly > scientific problem. It is the least I want to show. > > Read the paper here if you want save your time: > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> > > Those results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many > intuitions discussed in this list. > > Bruno > > > On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote: > >> I'm ignorant of what you mean by "mind body problem." Can you >> explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? >> Thanks. >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not >>> aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he >>> is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory). >>> >>> The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his >>> unconscious use of the identity thesis in the "philosophy of >>> mind" (alias cognitive science). >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote: >>> >>> >>>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf >>>> comments? >>>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
