On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by the >> abstraction of the universal machine are done by the sensory substrate in >> which the machine-program is instantiated. The machine is only an automated >> map as far as I can tell. To make it more than that, the computations must >> take place within sensory-motive-time<>space-energy-mass. >> >> >> I will wait for you to prove this statement. >> > > I think my example of the violin being unable to play the song about how > piano music sounds might work. I would not be surprised if it could be > formalized into a proof, except that you would need to invent new formal > symbols for qualia (or use mine). If authenticity is allowed as an axiom, > then it can be proved. If it is denied, then it is begging the question to > try to prove authenticity within a formal system in which authenticity is > specifically disallowed. > Denying your premiss is as simple as referring to the differing frequency range, envelope, timbre, spectrum of any two instruments; and therefore different tonal characteristics and limits (different musical colors or effects on listeners). All you are "proving" is that, from some relative pov, musical blue is not the same as musical red. Doesn't say a thing about reality or proving "machine is automated map". Unless Craig uses his personalized language and symbols to make things mean whatever he wants; then indeed, Craig could "prove" this kind of thing to himself, I guess. PGC > > >> >> >> Nor with 0, s(0), s(s(0)), yes logic is not enough. >>> >>> I guess you mean that logic + elementary arithmetic is not enough. But >>> that's is tautological in your non-comp theory. >>> >> >> It's not a theory that I'm imposing though, its an observation. As sure >> as I can be that 5-2=3, I can also be sure that no quantitative function >> can generate qualia by itself. >> >> >> Yes, but as observation the machine already say so. And you are right, we >> agree on this, but when you disqualify the machine, you confuse her []p >> with her []p & p. You confuse her body clothe with its possible relation >> with truth. >> > > I don't think the machine has a []p or a []p & p. They are all just steps > in an Escher staircase, leading to anywhere or nowhere, but never somewhere. > > Craig > > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 [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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
