On 2/19/2013 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:39:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

    On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com
    <javascript:>> 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

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.

Hi Craig,

To add to your point. How are all of those independent sense data points integrated into a unified 'whole' that is the content of the sense of an entity? So many people, like Minsky and Dennett tend to hand-wave through answers to that question....

            >> 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.

Superstition indeed! A habit at best is what we can say about what we experience of the *out there*.

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

    Visual relationships generated by your brain using arithmetical

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.

    Asking too much is not a good foil for that thrust...

        > 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

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.

OK, but let us try to figure out how we come to value our own data. We might get somewhere... :-)

        > 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.

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 human>animal>cellular quality.

    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.

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 prejudice.

            >>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?




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