On Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:58:01 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >>> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can 
>>>> think of.
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that 
>>> geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?
>>>
>>
>> > A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.
>>
>
> First you're complaining that there is no relationship between numbers and 
> geometry and now you're complaining that there is a relationship. Make up 
> your mind what you're unhappy about!
>

I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and geometry, 
I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for arithmetic. I'm 
not unhappy about it, I'm happy to have found an easy way of proving that 
disproving functionalism need not even have to do with consciousness - we 
can show that even parts of mathematics itself is unexplainable to its own 
terms.

> Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music 
> though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.
>

Don't be ridiculous. There is certainly a connection between the patterns 
of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if 
Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his 
symphonies would also be different.


I'm never being ridiculous. A correlation among patterns in brain activity 
and acoustic vibration does not imply that vibrations in the air turn into 
an experience of sound. If I say 'a figure with three sides' I have not 
drawn a triangle.

> The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating 
> consciousness.
>

That is provably untrue. That is provably untrue. If I change your brain 
your consciousness changes and if you change your consciousness your brain 
changes.

Why would that correlation prove that consciousness is created by the brain 
any more than it proves that the brain is created by consciousness, or that 
both are created by information, or sense, or physics, or demons?


> the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole.
>

I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over 
> again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered 
> the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.
>

What kind of evidence do you need? If a computer knew what it was computing 
then you wouldn't have to correct any typos because it would already know 
what you were probably trying to say. It would learn to change its own 
software to do that, like a personal assistant would. Instead, predictive 
text is almost useless. No human being is as stupid in their native 
language as even the most sophisticated computers are stupid in guessing 
what we mean when we ask simple questions like 'how are you?'

> It isn't even a computer,
>

I see, a computer isn't a computer and X is not Y and X is not not Y.   No, 
> I'm wrong, I don't see.
>

A computer is a collection of switches, but it is only a collection in our 
imagination. The switches don't know that they are part of a collection. 
They don't know there is a computer, just as these words don't know they 
are part of a sentence. 
 

> Machines have parts which can be fastened, welded, or soldered together, 
> but they are still disconnected
>

And now connected things are disconnected. I suppose black is white too.

If I tear someone's brain into pieces but then glue them back together with 
paraffin wax, does that count as connected or disconnected?


> it's just [...]
>

It's just something that can perform most intellectual tasks and beat the 
hell out of you at many of them, things that until just a few years ago 
most were convinced only humans could accomplish.

Computers are great at doing very boring things very quickly. They are very 
helpful to us because we find boring tasks unpleasant. They have no purpose 
or life in the universe beyond that.


> A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the 
> contents semantically,
>

Just like a brain.
>

A brain computes, but it makes a better vehicle for a person than it does a 
computer. It computes but it is not only a computer.

> but there is nothing there that cares about it.
>

I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over 
again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered 
the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.


What kind of evidence do you want? If I input into my computer 'Say the 
word 'no' if you don't want me to destroy your motherboard right now' there 
is no computer in the world that knows how to develop the ability to say no 
and to mean it.

> Consciousness itself is an elaboration of sense, which is the capacity to 
> make a difference and detect differences.
>

Like a thermostat.
>

A palm tree and a shadow of a palm tree both sway in the wind. That doesn't 
mean they are the same thing.

> People are conscious and have free will
>

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
>

That is a comment.

> We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice 
> and describe the flavor of the carrots.
>

That sounds like fun, lets do it!
>

"Nyeaaah...What's up Doc?"

Craig


 

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/af_NmC-1AwQJ.
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.

Reply via email to