On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would assume that geometric truths don't contradict arithmetic truths.
>

And arithmetical truths don't contradict geometrical truths, and a 3D
geometrical machine can provide answers to arithmetical questions, and a 1D
arithmetical machine can provide answers to 3D geometrical questions; so
what's the problem?

>>"under some arithmetical conditions" numbers behave exactly precisely in
>> the way that Euclid said geometric objects should behave.
>>
>
> > That doesn't say anything about arithmetic becoming geometry. A program
> can predict exactly how an apple will fall from a tree, but that doesn't
> mean that if apples didn't exist, the program would create them.
>

You talk a lot about qualia but you haven't thought it through. You know
nothing about apples themselves you only know about the sensation of
experiencing the apple qualia. The color red is not a apple, the taste of a
apple is not a apple, and the feel of a apple is not a apple either. The
only thing you know about apples is the way your brain, using the laws of
arithmetic, interprets a one dimensional signal that comes over a wire into
your brain when one of your sense organs encounters an apple.

>> Numbers have also told us something we could not have found out in any
>> other way, that Euclid's way is not the only way that geometric objects can
>> behave that is logically consistent. And then Einstein, also using numbers,
>> showed that not only is this non-Euclidean way possible it is the only way
>> to figure out how things change in very powerful gravitational fields.
>>
>
> > Yes, because have geometry (because of our sensory experience = no
> thanks to arithmetic),
>

No thanks to arithmetic?? You take it for granted but the fact is every bit
of your vaulted 3D "sensory experience" comes to you through signals sent
down a ONE dimensional wire to your brain which then interprets it as a 3D
space. As apologists for vitalism and other such medieval views never tire
in pointing out, electromagnetic waves 7700 angstroms long are NOT the
qualia red, and in exactly the same way you have ZERO direct experience
with 3D space, you only have experience with the qualia of 3D space, a
experience orchestrated by your brain, a organ which operates entirely
according to the laws of arithmetic.

> neither geometry or arithmetic imply each other without our sense of
> relation between visually experienced shapes
>

Visual relationships generated by your brain using arithmetical processes.

> Without shapes, angles, lines, volumes, there are only invisible
> quantitative relationships.
>

I don't know about "invisible" but complex numbers can be both qualitative
as well as quantitative, they can have both a magnitude and a direction.

> Eyes can see, but not like humans see. There are plankton with eyes. No
> brain is required to see.
>

Plankton "eyes" can't form a image, not even a 2D one, about all they can
do is tell the difference between light and dark and then the animal either
swims toward or away from the light depending on the species. Photoreceptor
cells converts light into a electrical signal and transmits it through a
nerve to cells endowed with thin hairs called cilia that undulate to
displace water and move the animal. There are toys that do much the same
thing, and they only need a small handful of transistors and a very simple
first generation Charge Coupled Device to do it. In fact forget the CCD,
just use a bit of selenium as found in a 1940's era light meter.

> Cameras do not allow computers to see, they only generate data which is
> interpreted invisibly and meaninglessly.
>

I have no idea what you mean by "invisibly" but if the way computers
process data is meaningless why is computer data processing a
multi-trillion dollar industry?

> I don't demand that AI prove it is conscious, I understand why it is not
> conscious.
>

Your "understanding" of consciousness is supported by 2 pillars, the second
is more important than the first:

1) I am made of carbon and conscious, but computers are made of silicon,
therefore computers can never be conscious.

2) I would prefer it if computers were not conscious, therefore computers
are not conscious, thus the laws of physics must somehow forbid conscious
computers.

I honestly don't think your reasoning on this matter is one smidgen more
sophisticated than that.

>>what aspect of geometry have numbers failed to capture?
>>
>
> > The geometric aspect.
>

Well I'm glad you cleared that up.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to