Re: Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np
From: Eray Ozkural exa (examachine_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: question for math teachers"
- Previous message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: (probably stupid) question on Fermat decidability"
- In reply to: Robin Chapman: "Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np"
- Next in thread: Robin Chapman: "Re: Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np"
- Reply: Robin Chapman: "Re: Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Nov 2004 18:05:49 -0800
Robin Chapman <rjc@ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cnpofu$q0j$3@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Eray "are there integers with an infinite number of digits?" Ozkural wrote:
>
> > I said. If mind is a computation, the philosophical conclusions follow
> > easily.
> >
> > Do you agree that mind is a computation or not?
Well, I am not even the last to suggest that the mind may be a
computation.
However, in the above quote, I am not asserting that the computational
view of the mind is correct. (Although I think so) Again, you are
misrepresenting my quotes. Try to read my sentences more carefully.
The claim is this: Chaitin seems to be implicitly presupposing the
correctness of computationalism. On such a premise, the other
philosophical claims about "no reason" trivially follow. Torkel might
not be able to see that.
So, here is a challenge for Torkel. If the mind is a computation, then
"no reason" has a very precise mental meaning, and indeed Omega is not
amenable to any reason in such a possible world. You have to accept
its bits as brute facts about the world if you're unfortunate enough
to occupy such a world. Regardless of whether our world is like that,
do you agree with this answer?
Regards,
-- Eray Ozkural
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: question for math teachers"
- Previous message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: (probably stupid) question on Fermat decidability"
- In reply to: Robin Chapman: "Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np"
- Next in thread: Robin Chapman: "Re: Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np"
- Reply: Robin Chapman: "Re: Ozkural solves mind-body problem was Re: meta-proof that p is not np"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|