On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:58, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not atall indicated from math or computation, and derives solely fromsensory experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?Sure. Can you prove it? Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes? Computers prove theorems in geometry. But they don't need geometry to do it.As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, andbeer steins as points, lines, and intersections.It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.Then you don't have a point. Geometry is nothing more than theaxioms and theorems of geometry.

`I would not say that. It is the model of the axioms. Even the intended`

`model, most of the time, except that sometimes we develop interest in`

`some new model, like with non Euclidian geometry.`

Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all- which is obviously the case within a computer which is designedto have no capacity to render shapes that it can see.Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability tomanipulate objects in 3-space. Which is why I use Mars rovers asexamples of intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines. Theycertainly understand somethings about geometry and they can seeshapes. That's how they avoid running into big rocks.

`I agree with your point. I doubt it will convince Craig, but that`

`seems a difficult task.`

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 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.