On Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:58:01 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. 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.
