John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> writes: >>> You have no evidence that mathematics is more fundamental than >>> physics. None,
I'm his evidence. Unless I misunderstand Bruno's ideas, I am the machine, ready to be interviewed for the laws of physics (when I don't have something better to do). I might not understand your questions: I am not a Chinese room and do not speak Chinese, although I have a coworker in a neighboring cubicle who does. Not sure which dialect but I could ask. You might not understand my answers: words are metaphors for shared experiences and I have experiences, namely certain quales which shall remain nameless, which to my knowledge have never been experiences by any other being. However, since introspection of some of these have resulted in my ability to explain things I previously found myself unable to explain, I have hope that some of them I will be able to communicate. No telling which ones, though. It would be like explaining red to Mary the color scientist while she's still in her room. Which may or may not speak Chinese - only Mary might know, until Wigner opens it. > > I have better: a proof that if we are machine, then physics is a > modality on the arithmetical truth. > > Like hell you have! I'll wager some of my otherwise free time that I'm his proof. > What is indispensable is that anything that deserves the label > "God" must be a intelligent conscious omniscient omnipotent BEING I used to call myself a theological noncognivitist, but I'm rethinking that. I sometimes like to say that "God" is the thing which no two people can agree on a definition of. However, in light of the aforementioned incommitoday I decided I should revise that to be that "God" is the thing which no two people can agree on the definition of *yet*, as some recent trains of thought which recalled certain experiences under the influence of a (legal) entheogenic compound have suggested might be wise. Nevertheless, by some definitions of "God" I might deserve that label (and there are an infinite number, many unused). God groks, after all, I am demonstrably intelligent and you will have to take my word for it at the moment that I am conscious - however, in my view, since the Turing test is as valid a test for consciousness as it is for intelligence, if we continue to keep in touch you will be able to administer that test yourself. Since, because of the Blockhead argument, the only truly valid Turing test for consciousness is an infinite-duration one, that will take quite some time. And if my path through observer-moments takes me through them all (think the end of John P. Dworetsky's "The Illusion of Death" but throw in the ideas of a strange loop and synesthesia and some ideas I hope to get to expounding in the near future) I (and you) will eventually be categorizable as omniscient and omnipotent in the sense of having known everything knowable and done everything doable at one time or another. > You can define God by the fundamental reality > > > That's true, you can try to get people to change the meaning of a > word, but doing so would not be a exercise in philosophy or even > theology, it would just be a exercise in vocabulary. Do, or do not. There is no try. > And the only reason for doing so would be if you were too cowardly to > say "I don't believe in God". No, I have an excellent reason for doing so, in fact I can name two off the top of my head. One, I'd like to coopt catchy and memorable but little-used words to name some of the aforementioned quales with no name. Two, while word salad can be delicious and nutritious, ambiguity can be a barrier to communication. Also, meaning exists only in minds, so words, such as "inconceivable", don't always mean what you think they mean, no matter how much you keep using them. > So now that "God" just means "stuff" you can > proudly say "I believe in God" even if all you mean is "I believe in > stuff". It all seems like a pretty stupid word game to me. We are all educated stupid word animals. -- Mark Buda <her...@acm.org> I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free. -- 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.
