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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.