Hi Bruno Marchal
This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you seem to
speak of the world and mind
as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world and
mind as we live them,
not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds.
It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving in.
Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating it.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-08-14, 05:38:31
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote:
>From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe
seems rather obvious.
I don't think anything is obvious here.
What do you mean by a subjective universe? Do you mean that we are dreaming?
What is your theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?
Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient
I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with omniscience,
even restricted to number relations. Computational universality entails the
impossibility of omniscience.
solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
Somehow, where information is concerned, context
I agree with this. I would say that information is really context selection.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at