On 06/03/11 19:45, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:18, Andrew Soltau wrote:On 07/02/11 15:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:I have debunked more than once on this list the idea that a moviecan think. (It is an error akin to the confusion between a numberand a gĂ¶del number of a number, a confusion between a description ofa computation and a computation, it is a confusion of the typefinger and moon (ultrafrequent in the field).However, a movie can of course represent / be a train of thought.A movie (figuring a boolean plane computing device doing acomputation) can *represent* a computation and can, as such,*represent* a train of thought, but it cannot *be* a train of thought.There is just no computation in the movie, no more than actual causein a movie. I have more elaborated argument for showing that a moviecannot think, except in the sense that all piece of matter sum up allcomputations, due to a non trivial fractal aspect of the universaldovetailing (cf my post to Brent).Then all you need is the thinker. I am most intrigued to understandhow your theory gives rise to a thinker.A tiny arithmetical theory, like Robinson Arithmetic (roughlyequivalent with Peano Arithmetic without the induction axiom) canalready prove the existence of all UD-reachable computational states.So if your current thought is "I am hungry", there is a relativecomputational state corresponding to that thinker's feeling, andRobinson Arithmetic can prove that such state exists.To explain the stability of such feeling is far more demanding,because such a stability will rely not only on *all* proofs of theexistence of such states, but also on never terminating proofs (offalse proposition for example) (re)proving the existence of yourstates. Non terminating executions of programs and infinite proofs arethe real (with comp) stabilizer of the relative computational states.Roughly speaking, the thinkers or the dreamers are the universalnumbers relatively to all other universal numbers.(A universal number is just the (finite) code of a universal (Turing,Post, Church, Kleene, ...) digital machine.Assuming comp, as always. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

`What I am driving at here is the same question as in the email Comp.`

`Granted that all possible states exist, what changes the point of the`

`present moment from one to another. My referring to 'the thinker' was`

`probably not a helpful metaphor. Given the universal numbers, what`

`carries out the process whereby one is transformed into another? What`

`makes the state of the thinker or the dreamer into the state of that`

`entity at the next moment?`

Andrew -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.