On 01 Feb 2014, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
then feel free to "invoke some non-comp" or invoke more "comp" if
that floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to
find a consistent definition of your silly little word "comp" that
is used on this list and nowhere else.
False.
False? Who else besides you and a few other members of this list has
even heard of "comp"? Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comp
Wikipedia lists 27 possible meanings of the word "comp" and not one
of those 27 meanings has anything to do with AI or mind or the brain
or consciousness or determinism or materialism or information. Not
one!
That is a bit astonishing, but wikipedia is not perfect.
Anyway, you do agree with the comp definition. You stop at step 3, not
0, as you have illustrated in all your post. So this is again only a
distracting remark.
> Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated
person should know get tiresome too.
> Childish immature remark.
Perhaps, but out of the mouth of babes comes truth. The fact is your
acronyms are even more obscure than "comp" is.
I use acronym for notion which I have explained in all detail
repeatedly. Which one you still don't now.
I use comp, for computationalism = "yes doctor" + Church's thesis.
UD = Universal Dovetailer (any problem with that?)
UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument (= the argument in 8 steps in the
sane04 paper)
AUDA = Arithmetical UDA = the interview of the universal machine,
explained in the second part of sane04.
>>> once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some
"digital transformation"
>> I do believe that.
> Good. That's comp.
Apparently "comp" involves a great deal more than that, in
particular a lot of vague pee pee crap.
No. Comp is only that. But then I derive consequence from that. It is
up to you to explain why you would assess comp and not the
consequence. You have made attempts but they have been debunked by
many people of this list. So you are only insulting here.
>> Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation
of consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk
I'm pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in
the johnkclak program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.
> Only by a confusion 1p and 3p,
OK now were getting to the heart of the matter (no pun indented).
Explain exactly why my statement above is confused and or wrong and
you will have won this year old debate.
UDA is the explanation of this. You agreed also that consciousness is
not localized, but you talk like if the object on your desk are
localized. If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps
supported by many other computations (in a physical universe or in
arithmetic) you need to explain why the object of your desk appear to
be made of local matter, and how your non localized consciousness can
refer to those local object. then UDA shows in detail why you can't do
that. See all my posts or the paper(s) for more on this.
> you are stuck at the step 3.
John Clark is stuck when Bruno Marchal constantly sneaks in personal
pronouns like "you" and "I" in a proof about personal identity,
I keep repeating this, but that has been debunked repeatedly by many
people on this list.
You just seem immune to reason.
You keep saying that "you" and "I" are fuzzy, but you neglect the
difference between 1-you and 3-you, which is the base of the reasoning.
Again you do that systematically, and it is has been shown more than
one time to be persistent nonsense.
and when reading about "the 3p" as if were one universal thing,
You made that up. Focus on the points.
but Bruno Marchal's 3p is John Clark's 1p.
On the contrary, the 3p is defined in the relative way right at the
beginning of the paper, and I have explained it here very often.
Nobody but you "don't understand" but fail completely in asking
relevant questions about it.
> You are the only person stuck in step 3 that I know.
I guess they didn't make it that far, but it's been over a year and
to be honest I don't even remember what the first 2 steps were, they
may have been just as silly as step 3.
This shows the complete non seriousness of your attitude. If after one
year you don't know the steps, despite you could print one slide with
all of them summed up, it means that you have judged from rumors and
not personal study. You are an obscurantist religious bigot and
parrot, with no respect at all for reason and genuine dialog.
Bruno
John k Clark
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
