On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:56:53 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> No, I'm saying that the blue pov can't play red like the red pov can play >> red. It's about how music can be used to refer to the aesthetic identity of >> the musician, and how that reference can only be authentic in the actual >> instance of the musician or musical instrument that plays it. A piano >> concerto that is called 'the piano concerto that celebrates the particular >> pianist playing this concerto' cannot be played by a violinist or a violin >> without comprimising the authenticity of the performance. >> >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> No, I'm using regular old English language, and regular logic, albeit >> logic that requires seeing authenticity as being a real and significant >> influence in nature. Anyone who was looking at my argument with an >> unbiased, scientific attitude would have to go beyond the hand waving >> objections of 'personal language', blah blah blah. I guess PGC could prove >> his objections exempt from reasoned examination to himself though, using >> his Craig straw-idiot. >> > > But I agree. As stated, no two instruments are identical, no two musicians > are identical, no two povs on their combination are identical. >
Then how could instruments and musicians be reduced to identical arithmetic units? As far as I can tell, a yes for irreducible differences is a no to computationalism. > > The authenticity would be preserved given some comp background, simply > because no two differing programs, environments, numbers etc. are identical. > But you could make a program that emulates the identical environments, programs, numbers, etc. That's what Church-Turing means if extended to the Absolute. That is computationalism. > > So yes, on authenticity; but that is exactly why regardless of MSR, comp, > some physical universe, I don't see what you show or prove beyond what > seems like tautology. > I'm showing that authenticity can be empirically demonstrated, and that the failure of logic to detect the significance of authenticity can be empirically demonstrated, but that neither authenticity or the failure of logic to detect it can be detected within logic. At least Godel shows logic's incompleteness, but that is just the beginning. What logic doesn't know about what logic doesn't know I think dwarfs all of arithmetic truth. Craig > PGC > > >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> >>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l >>> ... >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> 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.
