On 07 Apr 2014, at 22:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Another part 2
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I keep explaining that arithmetic seen from inside escapes somehow
the mathematics accessible to the machine.
No need to keep explaining, I understood from the beginning. I'm
suggesting that the 'somehow' is due to the machine actually being
a reduced set of qualia. Arithmetic is a machine run by sense.
No problem with such suggestion, but a suggestion is not a
refutation.
A refutation may not be possible because comp is too autistic. It
refuses to accept any arguments that are not defined in purely
logical terms. Insensitivity defines sensitivity in a trivial way.
False. It accepts any valid argument. You did not present one.
You're just affirming what I said. Why do you assume that the truth
must be a valid argument?
Truth is not a valid argument. It is not an argument to begin with.
It is a valuation of a statement. A semantics.
It doesn't have to be a statement. Truth is a quality of congruence
across sensory experiences.
For the 1p. Of course, by denying any independent 3p, you just deny
that science has any ability to handle such question, but comp, even
if wrong, provides the counter-example. You deny it from your theory,
but that is trivial and beg the question.
Some truths are experiential and aesthetic.
You confuse p and []p & p.
No, I deny "& p" altogether.
Then you can prove that 0=1. The " & p" has to be added, the machines
already "know" this.
They appear before logic and cognition.
At which level, in what sense of "before"? I need a theory to make
sense of such terms.
In the sense of there being a possibility of sense without logic but
not logic without sense.
In your theory. That begs the question. You can't use your theory in
this discussion.
You just tell us that you know that, but that is not an argument.
I don't say I know it, I say that it makes more sense.
That is a progress. It makes more sense to machine too. But "more
sense" is not an argument, especially in this context.
More sense is better than an argument. Arguments are limited to logic.
Logic is applied in argument, about anything. Again, if you need to be
illogical as this point, you make my point.
How do you know that a machine that can't feel (like a voice mail
machine) knows that it can't feel?
I know nothing (publicly communicable). I just tell you what I
assume, and what I derive from the assumption.
But I thought you were saying that you have an argument showing that
step 0 (comp) is invalid at the start.
Comp is invalid at the start because it loses nothing when we assume
that all function can be reduced to logic and hidden logic.
Computation works as a map of maps, and need have no territory that
is presented aesthetically, either theoretically or empirically. The
jump from map to territory is reverse engineered from the very
expectations of our own awareness, making comp more likely to be a
figment of circular reasoning.
Confusion between []~comp and ~[]comp. It would be circular if I was
defending the truth of comp, but I am just showing that your argument
beg the question.
Why would a more sophisticated machine be any different in that
regard?
A voice mail machine does not seem to implement a universal machine
believing in some induction principles, like PA, ZF.
We don't know that the voice mail machine lacks PA and ZF induction
principles,
This is ridiculous.
any more that I know that machines can't be zombies. Even if that
were true though, I see no reason to presume that the extra
functionality added through PA or ZF need result in any aesthetic
phenomena flying around.
The point is that you argue for the contrary, but don't present an
argument independent of your non-comp assumption, making it circular.
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/d/optout.
