On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>you talk like if the object on your desk are localized. >> >> >> >>Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious >> being but can't emulate a desk? >> > > > I am not saying that. I am saying that the desk apparent localization > has to be explained in taking into account the non-localization of your > consciousness. > I don't see the problem. Having consciousness means among other things the ability to think about stuff, so you can think about your hand and you can think about your desk and you can think about your hand interacting with your desk. >>> 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 >> >> >> >> Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the John >> Clark subprogram; >> > > > By God? > By evolution. > who? > The correct question is not who but what. God is the supreme being, and a being is conscious, and I don't think consciousness had anything to do with the ultimate emergence of life from non-life, or of something from nothing. So even if there is a God He is just as mystified by these deepest of questions as we are. > and why? > Because subprograms (like the John Clark subprogram) that interacted with other subprograms (like the desk subprogram) and produced a feeling of local matter were better at not getting erased and better at reproducing than programs that just ignored other subprograms. > Evolution? > Yes Evolution. > How evolution, here and now, could localize your consciousness/desk > relation? > Because animals (or subprograms if its true that our world is virtual) that don't localize their head and their desk tend to bash their head in on their desk destroying their brain as a result. And an animal without a brain (or that bit of code if you want to look at it that way) will have much less reproductive success than a animal that DID localize its head and desk and thus avoided a head/desk collision. An animal that localized objects would still have a fully functioning brain, one that didn't wouldn't. > >> he could even ignore the laws of physics if he wished and use > Aristotelian physics, or road runner cartoon physics. > > > That is part of the problem. > I still don't see the problem. The laws of physics that animals believe in have also undergone a selection process, the laws of physics that we intuitively feel to be true are those that maximize our reproductive success. That's why Quantum Physics feels so alien to us, life on the African savanna where we evolved was far from the quantum world, so a animal that found Quantum Mechanics to be intuitively obvious would enjoy no increased reproductive success. > Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA, > As I've said many times I started to read your "proof" and stopped only when your errors became so egregious there was no point in continuing. 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.
