On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:39:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark 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.
The only thing you know about the brain is the way that people have used
instruments, using a one dimensional signal that comes into a wire from
some probe or meter. In the case of the apple, the signal is
multi-dimensional, a result of evolved relations on many levels, from
biological to molecular to zoological, from acoustic sensitivity to
optical, thermal, kinetic, olfactory, vestibular, etc, as well as cultural,
social, psychological, and cognitive understandings.
Looking at an apple, smelling, and tasting the apple, I experience
everything that matters about apples in human history. We would not know or
care about apples if not for the qualia. When we talk about apples, we are
talking about qualia. We can talk about sugar content or cellular
structure, but there is nothing apple-like about that. Those are generic
metrics that are meaningless on their own.
> >> 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.
There is no 'one dimensional wire to your brain'. The optic nerve is a
community of living organisms, just like the rest of our body. Nothing is
one dimensional except abstract models in our minds. Your assumptions about
perception and 'signals' aren't realistic, and they have nothing to do with
the existence of geometry. Why should any signals be interpreted as 3D
space? Where do the dimensions come from? Certainly not arithmetic - it
needs no visual shapes and volumes to calculate how to respond to a given
set of conditions.
> 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.
You have no support for your supersitition that there is a such thing as 3D
space independent of that experience orchestrated by a brain and you have
no way of knowing what laws the brain runs on because your view of the
brain has no possibility for consciousness to exist through it. Likewise
there is no evidence that the brain orchestrates any experiences at all. We
know that it changes our experiences, or changes our access to them, but we
have never seen an experience created.
> > 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.
If that were true. then they would not need to be visual. No arithmetic
process has ever generated anything except other arithmetic processes.
Please give me an example of any arithmetic process which generates
physical or experiential consequences.
> > 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.
No. All of the qualities of numbers are figurative. The direction and
magnitude are poetic and abstract, not spatial.
> > 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
No. Light is not 'converted' into anything. No more than paying for lunch
converts paper rectangles onto a hamburger. I don't know what plankton's
visual experience consists of, but I know that the principle by which it
has that experience is the same principle as the one which gives us images,
and that it does not require a brain to experience optical conditions.
> 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.
That's what I'm saying, sensitivity is primitive.
> > 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?
Because it is valuable to us to be informed. It isn't because computers
value their own data.
> > I don't demand that AI prove it is conscious, I understand why it is not
> 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.
I'm not made of carbon, I am made of personal experiences. My body is made
of tissue, which is made of cells, which are made of sugars, proteins,
lipids, and lots of water. Carbon plays an important role in the molecules,
but it is *absurd* to say that I am made of carbon. It's like saying that
the Earth is just a ball of iron and nickel. It is not because computers
are made of silicon, but because anything that does not become a living
being by itself can't generate a history of personal experiences of
> 2) I would prefer it if computers were not conscious, therefore computers
> are not conscious, thus the laws of physics must somehow forbid conscious
Wrong again. I don't care whether computers are conscious or not. Why would
I? What I say is that I observe that they are not conscious, and so do many
other. The laws of physics as you understand them forbid any form of
consciousness, but you can't tolerate that, so the laws of physics must
somehow allow it through a shroud of 'complexity'.
> I honestly don't think your reasoning on this matter is one smidgen more
> sophisticated than that.
Then that shows that your prejudice has blinded you to all except your own
> >>what aspect of geometry have numbers failed to capture?
>> > The geometric aspect.
> Well I'm glad you cleared that up.
The geometric aspect = all that uniquely comprises geometry - angles,
lines, planes, shapes, points. What else is there?
> 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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.