On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I am not an atheist.
Sorry to hear about your mind virus, but don't despair, even rabies
can sometimes be cured.
I am an agnostic. I think that a serious scientist has to be agnostic
on any ontological commitment, be it God or Matter.
Then with comp I explain that Matter (primitive matter) does not make
much sense, and that physicalism cannot work.
> Evolution have programmed us to believe, or to take very seriously
our environment,
Yes because that program works. And Evolution also programmed us to
believe almost everything adults told us when we were children and
no doubt somebody told you that atheist were bad people so although
you've managed to free yourself from the God idea (and I
congratulate you for that) you still want to make the "I am not an
atheist" noise with your mouth so you redefine the word "God" and
thus all related words like "atheist".
I just do research. My personal belief are private.
My point is that the real debate is between the Aristotelian view,
where Matter is primary and everything else emerges from material
combinations, and the platonist view, where matter is secondary and
emerge itself, statistically, in the mind of arithmetical beings.
Today both Christians (with exceptions) and atheists (with fewer
exception) have adopted the Aristotelian view, more or less imposed to
us by authority since 1500 years, by the Church, but also by many kind
of materialist philosophies.
> What do you believe in?
Well, I believe that Tallahassee is the capital of Florida for one
thing. I believe in all sorts of other things too, I just don't
believe in God.
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically
all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question
like "is God a person" can be an open problem.
But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot
cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of
God. In the "machine theology" god is arithmetical truth, and I am
pretty sure that you do believe in that God. It is a good notion of
God for the machines (as seen from outside, as the machine itself will
not been able to even define "arithmetical truth"). Indeed it obeys to
the two main fundamental attributes: it is not definable, and it is
responsible for the machine dreams (from which the sharble "physical"
realities should emerge (as provable or arguable (at least) once e
take comp seriously enough.
> You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and
Guilty as charged.
> for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods
like if it was the only one.
I throw out all Gods who are beings that are responsible for the
multiverse; I don't throw out a hypothetical vastly powerful being,
Good. With comp, arithmetical truth is enough (even a tiny part of it).
I'm a agnostic on that, but such a being would not be a God just a
comic book superhero or supervillan.
?
> Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually
a christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter.
In my opinion Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived,
certainly nobody has harmed the subject more.
No. It was an excellent physicist. Perhaps the first one. He was wrong
basically on all points. OK. But this we can know thanks to the fact
that he made precise statements and serious research.
He was a good theologian, he invented logic and modal logic notably to
argue in metaphysics and theology. But he seems to be also wrong, in
that field, at least with respect to the comp hyp.
>God looks like Santa Klaus to me too, and that is exactly why
theology has no more substance to it than Santaklausology.
> This is so ridiculous.
I don't see why you believe Santaklausology is more ridiculous than
theology, one is about a invisible man who lives at the north pole
and the other about a invisible man who lives in the sky.
Read books written by O'meara, on the revival of Pythagoras with the
neoplatonists, or read his book on Plotinus. Study the Platonists
theology, because comp, in which you believe, implies us to bactrack a
lot, which is not hard to guess given the lasting use of argument of
authority in the field.
You can' compare the concept of God in Plato with a sort of Santa
Klaus in the sky.
> It is pretty ridiculous to throw out a concept because of a word.
It's even more ridiculous to throw out a concept but stay loyal to
the word for it.
Because it is the one used by most, before and around Christians.
Notably by Plato, on which I try to point.
>> you're going to have to invent a new word for it, let's call it
"Fluberblast".
> The fact that you reject "one" which is the quite standard term in
neoplatonism shows how much to have bad faith on such question.
Good, I will stick on "God",
Why not Fluberblast?
Because I would be the only one using that term.
>> I think that everything which exists is no more extensive than
its physical properties; but that's not very restrictive because
some physical properties, such as gravity, are infinite in extent.
Intelligent behavior is also a physical property and if Darwin was
correct then consciousness MUST be a byproduct of that.
>OK. So you are physicalist,
Am I? OK, call me that if you like but just don't call me late for
dinner.
No problem. The question is: do you believe that to do fundamental
science, like seraching a TOE (or disporving its existence) should we
necessarily assume the physical reality, or do you conceive that the
physical reality can emerge from something non physical (perhaps
arithmetical, or mathematical)?
>but then you have to say "no" to the digitalist doctor.
BULLSHIT! If Intelligent behavior is a physical property as I said
Is that physical property Turing emulable? Well, I guess you have to
answer yes given that you said that we might be machine, or that
consciousness is Turing emulable.
and if Intelligent behavior can be duplicated as all Turing machines
can be and if consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of Intelligent
behavior then John K Clark can be duplicated.
Of course. That is the first consequence of comp. Nobody told the
contrary. The first person indeterminacy is a direct consequence of
this, once you grasp properly the difference between 1-person and
third person.
It is because that John K Clark is duplicable, that John K Clark
cannot predict which city will be first person perceive after pushing
the button.
> You believe that the human body is not a machine
Like hell I do.
> you believe that you have cut with your religious education, but
you did not. You defend the Aristotle theology, and condemn the
Platonist one, exactly like the most fundamentalist christians.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>>> If your were willing to study step 4 [...]
>>That's not going to happen, there was far far too much pee pee in
the first 3 steps.
> Show them.
John Clark showed the blunders in the pee pee proof over a period of
months in dozens if not hundreds of posts and John Clark is not
going to rehash all those posts now except to say that pronouns were
created as a abbreviation for longer words and to save ware and tear
on the writing fingers, ideas can be communicated just fine without
pronouns even if sentences would be a bit longer and more clunky.
However Bruno Marchal is simply incapable of explaining his pee pee
proof without using pronouns and hiding behind the ambiguity
pronouns can cause if not used correctly.
Not at all. You told me "W and M" which was a nonsense as you admitted
that both copies see only once city, and that the question was
concerning exactly that: which particular city he will seen. the
criteria of verification was clearly given: as you are duplicated, to
know the first person account you have to listen to both copies. Once
said "Oh I am in washington" (and not "washington and moscow).
You just avoided the question, as anyone has clearly observed and many
told you. Stop you rethoric with the pronouns. They are even more
absurd if you look at AUDA, where the (first person and thrid person)
pronouns are defined in arithmetic (or in arithmetical terms).
>>> Are such brain Turing emulable?
>> Yes.
> OK. That's comp.
It can't be. I know what Turing Machines are and what they can do
and what the idea implies, but you tell me that your homemade term
"comp" implies all sorts of stuff that is always weird and sometimes
contradictory that has nothing to do with Turing Machines.
You are delirious. UDA1-7 is easy to understand by young and old
people. UDA-8 is more difficult, but most people thinks it is really
only for the cutting air people, as for them Ned Block chinese people
computer, and that kind of emulation illustrate that consciousness is
not related to physical happening, but to numerical and logical
relations.
Then AUDA is an abstract translation of UDA in arithmetic, and it has
been verified by many, and actually it is simple for anyone familiar
with mathematical logic. It gives rise to many open problems too.
So despite you having been talking about "comp" for well over a year
I still don't know what that made up word of yours means.
Much more than that. I got UDA in the sixties of last century. And I
got in the seventies the idea that UDA could be translated in pure 3p,
notably in arithmetic.
> you believe that you are able to 100% predict where you will
uniquely (as you grant) feel to be after a self-duplication, making
all your copies refuting you.
As John Clark said above, Bruno Marchal is unable to explain Bruno
Marchal's pee pee idea without the use of ambiguous personal pronouns.
False. We both have agreed on the meaning of those terms. But you seem
to forget.
All what you need is to do the experience (in your mind). Someone is
duplicated in W and M. Then in M I ask if he was able to predict that
M and he says no, and the same for W. It is even easier to see with
the high iteration, like the random movies. Here the majority can win
by predicting "white" noise.
The situation is the same as in Everett, as other have explained to you.
The very subject being discussed is personal identity,
Not at all. You are in front of a button, and you have to evaluate the
chance of an experience, whose existence is guarantied to comp. UDA is
constructed to avoid the more difficult "identity" question. of course
UDA does gives an hint on "personal identity", but this is not used in
the argument.
and yet Bruno Marchal uses words like "you" and "your" with abandon
as if the referent is of those pronouns is obvious when showing who
the referents are is exactly what Bruno Marchal is trying, and
failing, to prove.
The use of pronoun is the standard indexical use of it, and in the
math part, it is defined by the common diagonalization technic,
similar to Kleene's second recursion theorem.
If you don't believe in the first person indeterminacy, just give me
an algorithm which output correctly W, or M, for the persons
concerned. Your "w and m" just don't work, and as been refuted in
detail, already.
You can think in term of robot. I have done a presentation on UDA to
experts in robot, and such a presentation, at the first person
indeterminacy was even more obvious, to them.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
