On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:01:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist > is if arithmetic is irreducible? > > > I did not say that. I was saying that you have to assume the numbers and > plus+times (or equivalent) to define pattern recognition, computers, etc. >
I don't see that pattern recognition requires numbers to be defined. To the contrary, numbers are clearly patterns recognized by different means. If you take pattern recognition as primitive, you don't help me to > understand anything you say. > I don't have any choice but to take pattern recognition as primitive - it is primitive. > > > > > Okay, prove that. > > >> Then everything around me does not make sense. > > > Why? > > > Because without computer in reality, I have one mystery more: how is it > that I can send you a mail? > The presence of a computer or network of computers doesn't mean that everything else doesn't make sense. Computers have only been around for a few decades. > > > > > >> If you >> believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a >> literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and >> multiplication in the sense I would wait for. >> > > I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing or > understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive sensory-motor > experiences. Addition and multiplication are not literal phenomena, rather > they are analytical descriptions and interpretations of phenomena which are > either bodies in space, experiences through time, or combinations and > continuations thereof. To get to addition, you need to have an experience > of counting, of memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary > coherence and multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and > representation...so many things... I have repeated this several times, why > do you act as if I have been silent on this point? > > > Sorry but you are confusing the numbers I assume, to explain just the > working of a computer, with the human intuition of numbers, and the human > senses, which needs the whole biological evolution to be explained. But you > talk like if you start from human sense, which is non sensical for me. > Sorry. > I don't start from human sense at all. I start from the irreducible. Perceptual participation = experience. The reason a computer works is because a there is an experience in which a body participates in a perception of not being able to occupy the same space as another body, or of a body being able to modify its own sensory-motor disposition based upon the capacity to perceive some sensory-motory disposition of another body. This is why we can't build machines out of gas or empty space or drawings on paper. > > > > > > >> >> >> > which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material >> > realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of >> > other private representations, it has no public existence which is >> > independent of sense, >> >> Assuming what? >> >> > Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin air? > > > > ? > > > > >> >> > nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to >> > any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist >> > independently of sense. >> > >> > Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that. >> >> In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the >> foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or >> semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have >> already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this. >> It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine >> cannot support thinking. >> > > It's not sad if I'm right. > > > That is subjective. I think it is sad even if you are right, as it makes > the zombies possible. > Zombies are only possible if you extend an expectation of sentience where it doesn't belong. Puppets and avatars are not only possible, but they are everywhere, and understanding how layers of sense are partitioned is essential to any theory of consciousness. > > > To me it's sad that we are seriously considering that machines could > generate thinking based on nothing but superficial correspondences to > behavior, especially when we know specifically that behavior and > consciousness are not directly correlated. > > > You are deadly wrong on this. The fact that machine could possibly think > is, for me, more related in the fact that they are mute on the deep > question than by any kind of behavior they can have. > To me the fact that they are mute on the deep questions is an obvious tautology. If you ask something which can't think a question which requires thinking, it is going to remain mute. It's really no more complicated than that. You are reading deep wisdom into the amputated noise of a Magic 8-Ball pushed beyond its design specs. > But for this you need to dig deeper in computer science than you seem > willing to be, so I am not sure I can really convince you. You want stick > on prejudices without opening the file. > >From my perspective, you are dug in too deep into computer science to see its limitations. Computing is important, but only for the normalization of public realism. The raw experience of participation, regardless of whether it is human participation or that of a molecule, or even a disembodied dream has no particular use for computation, and computation certainly and absolutely has no use for experience or dreams. Craig > Bruno > > > > > > Craig > > >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> > -- > 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/-/e3plsYYXQD4J. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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/-/dP1gKY6XvxIJ. 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.
