Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 24-mars-06, à 16:31, 1Z a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Le 20-mars-06, à 00:04, John M a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>> A Turing machine does nothing (by itself). Don't take
> >>> the power for granted. Something has to OPERATE it to
> >>> do anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why?  How could a digital machine distinguish reality, virtual
> >> reality,
> >> arithmetical reality, etc.
> >
> > The question is about what computers are , form a 3rd-person
> > perspective,
> > not about what a machine would see from its own 1st person perspective.
> > We know we have a 1st person perspecitve, and we have 3rd person
> > knowledge
> > of computers. That is the perspective of John's question. You question
> > is
> > from a machine's 1st person perspective. We don't even know that
> > digitial computers have a 1st-person perspective.
> It is our assumption. "I" am conscious and "I" am turing emulable. So
> some machine "can think".

That doesn't follow. An emulation of you must have some kind of
equaivalence or isomomrphism, but that leaves it as a map, not as
a territory. You can no more guarantee that your functional equivalent
is conscious (not a Zombie)  than you can guarantee that you can gor
in the map of a farm.

> >>> Bruno:
> >>> let me draw your attention to one little phrasing in
> >>> Hal's (and everybody else's, I presume, as I read
> >>> these posts)- text:
> >>> "If we assume..."
> >>> And if we do not?
> >>
> >>
> >> You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is based
> >> on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non definable)
> >> world-views.
> >
> > Almost all science is based on the implicit assumption of a "stuffy"
> > world view.
> No. This is a simplifying methodological assumption, but there is no
> evidence it is necessary. Few physicists use it.

I can assure you that real-life physicsists do use it. If you get your
information about physics from new-age books, that is another matter.

> Except the week-end
> when they doesn't want to be copnfronted with tricky foundational
> problems. True, the idea that there is a stuffy universe, and that
> "real" = what we measure, is in vogue since Aristotle, but it is
> incompatible with comp (this has been proved, I am not speculating. I
> can prove it to you if you are interested).

So much for comp. I wasn't very convinced by it anyway.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to