<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
             <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>         
    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: 
     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
                    u>

I've cogitated a little on the difference in approach. I think we might
contrast as follows:

Colin:
 1) NUM realm is a platonic realm of idealised number. We are not in it.

 2) STUFF realms: meany possible (STUFF_A, STUFF_B...) actually reified.

 3) The STUFF in a stuff realm is literally the (non-ideal, non-platonic)
"number-base" upon which reality_as_a_computation can be formalised.


 4) As creatures within a STUFF-realm we can use the NUM realm to
understand things because the maths is nice.

 5) computationalism is false in that computation done by STUFF-beings
using a STUFF-UD computing idealised NUM abstractions does not create a
NUM universe.

 6) computationalism is useful in that it can help us classify and
understand STUFF behaviour.

 7) The fact that maths happens to characterise the STUFF realm rather
well says merely that the STUFF realm behaviour is constrained in a
NUM-realm fashion, not that NUM-realm is our substrate and especially not
that NUM-maths is driving anything in the STUFF-realm.

 8) Only STUFF-beings in a STUFF-realm are conscious.

Bruno:
 1) NUM realm is a platonic realm of idealised number.
 2) All universes are made of instantiated NUM ?
 3) Having a NUM-substrate we can use the NUM realm to understand our
universe because the maths is nice.
 5) computationalism is true if our substrate is NUM?
------------------------------

My paper proves zombies can't do science. You have all said that the UD is
not conscious. This is another way of saying that any creatures within
(computed by) a UD have no consciousness. The UD is therefore a zombie
realm. Hence computationalism is false. Yes?

When you strip away layers of organisation you get closer and closer to
the real consituents of the universe. I take that empirical evidence to
base my work on. We do not find 'platonic number' down deep. We actually
find randomness-as-number. My approach has that level of empirical
support. It's why I chose it.

This whole business of using the specialised and unique behaviour called
science to enable the resolution of these issues is the "result" I claim
available to us. In effect it makes scientists the empirical evidence
proving computationalism false. An unexpected source, but kind of useful.

This approach also shows us the way to kill all contenders in a Turing
test. All you have to do is make the competitors do science on exquisite
novelty and derive a physical law that nobody knows, including the judges.
The Turing machine will fail every time. It won't even know the novelty is
there.

Colin Hales





--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to