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 at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 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, and beer 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 the axioms 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 designed to have no capacity to render shapes that it can see.

Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate objects in 3-space. Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines. They certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see shapes. 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.



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