On 20 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Not at all. the modal logics are entirely determined by the initial
axioms.
This is the problem. I do not allow any initial freestanding axioms.
The modal logics are not free, their are derived in arithmetic.
The initial sensivity (your term) used here (AUDA) is only your
understanding of the arithmetical laws of addition and
multiplication, (and of the machines, whose existence and activities
are derived from that.
You can start from sensitivity, but then you are a poet, not a
scientist.
Poetry is important, but it is not science, and it is bas poetry when
it pretend some truth, and denies a respectful attitude toward
possible creatures.
But you are a machine under comp and you CAN believe consistently
that you are a machine.
This is ambiguous, and when made precise, leads to not so obvious
questions, or simple falsities (I cannot believe consistently that I
am consistent).
Comp is refutable, so more precise questions are open problems.
Proofs have no existence without a conscious prover. Proof is
nothing but an expectation of matching one set of experiences to
another.
We have made progress about things like provability, formal, informal,
and computability. You might study this a little bit.
The relation of arithmetic to qualia is completely fabricated and
has no basis in mathematics as far as I can tell.
You beg the question. Even if the relation between qualia and
arithmetic that I describe as deriving from comp and the classical
theory of knowledge is wrong, you have to show that all possible comp
theories are wrong.
I'm not talking about computer science, I'm talking about
consciousness, metaphysics, and cosmology.
You have to address computer science when saying that computers cannot
emulate consciousness.
But indeed, you seem to just ignore the machines, so you don't gave
them any chance.
I am specifically challenging the assumption that computation or
arithmetic is elementary,
It is not.
Then what are you saying is elementary?
0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
I meant that computation are not elementary, or assumed. It is defined
from 0, s(0), ... and the laws of + and *.
Then you have to provide just one counter-example.
I am the counter-example. Color is the counter example. Flavor,
sound, feeling, etc.
You beg the question. Comp already explain why the 1p says so, but
that is an (machine's) opinion/feeling.
You are not a counter-example to comp. On the contrary you illustrate
very well the comp prediction that comp is hard to believe by machines
introspecting themselves a little bit.
Comp, like the Gödelian sentences, says something like "you can't
believe in me". That is why it asks for an act of faith.
Not true. There are no elementary axioms. Axioms are rules.
Logicians distinguish axioms (which are formula, or sentences), and
rules, which are operations on formulas leading to other formula. It
is as different as a number, like 0, and an operation like s (s(x) = x
+ 1).
I have to go, but I have read the other comment, and either you are
not providing any reason to believe that comp is false or inconsistent.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
