On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Jun 2014, at 05:14, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > > There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the > key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating > that for me, the salient point about the article was that the > distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they > closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around > 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth > > > Nice. > > > Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy or .nice like "yeah mother fucker > I'm with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread!" > > Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. > > What about the issue itself though? > > It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the > case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. > When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp > > > Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you > will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist "Jacques > Arsac" who said "As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He > wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp) book on this. But even among > the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. > > Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ which > cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at the > right level. > > > Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is > can replace < organA >with <majorRevolutioninFieldA> + <majorRevoltion in > field B>....+..+...<major revolution in field N> > > One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that > differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of > computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience > consciousness in my head, why not my liver? > > > > > Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with the > premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a > designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact > that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the > solution of the diophantine equations.> > > > > So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because > there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at > some point involving god and something else? > > This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus > composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them > would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. > > Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't > mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at > no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in > terms of comp at all. > > What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, > has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way > now from they believe in comp. > > I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And > the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels > someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a > zebra? > > Or do I miss the point? > > > > > > > and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, > > What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a > problem (except J.P. Delahaye)? > > > > Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? > Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? > > What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is > that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless > they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: > > Scientist believes comp= --> Bruno's criteria is assuming-com --> brunos's > UDA follows --> Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows > > > > --> MWI follows > > > > --> Infinite dreams follows > > * So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? > > > Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, > but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three and acknowledged > that he was counting the 3-views instead of the 1-views (like John Clark). > In brussels, they have invoked a philosopher who judged the thesis not > receivable (which means not even a private defense: they have never heard > me, even in private) from his personal conviction (and later invoke the > "free-exam" principle for that, like if the free-exam is the right for > professor to give bad note to student without questioning them). > > > If someone has said they accept the UDA you're good to say they accept it. > But it isn't going to be right to say that someone accepts your theory if > they accept comp. > > > "My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the > amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) "yes > doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for > giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor". > By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis > much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not > prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we > know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong > hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as reminding us that Plato was > Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory" was not Aristotelian (at least in > the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued > to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends). > > So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp theory > (which is arguably a very old idea). > > Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even take > offense that we can imagine not following comp. > > > Because they might not. This is a problem, because the other thing you do > is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. So > you are dominating people. > > > Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a > flaw if you think there is one). > > I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, > I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is > admittedly counter-intuitive. > > > > > Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in > extre dimensional reality? > > > First, I don't express myself in that way. > > For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its > logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that > matter goes on in extradimensional reality. > > With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine if > its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or has a > very large cardinal. > > Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary arithmetic > (like Robinson arithmetic). > > I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and > the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology. > > > > Do theybelieve in MWI > > > This is ambiguous. > > In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism", as a > (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become > skeptical) on both a creator and a creation. > > So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory. > > What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the > set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in > the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That > is not mine, that is standard material. > > You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the beginning.
> > > > > the infinite multiverse of dreams? > > > If you agree that the natural numbers obeys to the axioms (with s(x) > intended for the successor of x, that is x+1): > > 0 ≠ s(x) > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y > x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > Then you get the "multiverse of dreams" by comp. > > Keep in mind the most fundamental theorem of computer science (with Church > Thesis): Universal machines exist. And that theorem is provable in Robinson > arithmetic (in a weak sense), and in Peano Arithmetic (with a stringer > sense). > > > > What are the other consequences of the theory. Run me through them. > > > If it helps you to doubt a little bit of physicalism and Aristotelianism, > I am happy enough. > > The consequence is more a state of mind, an awe in front of something > bigger that we thought (the internal view of arithmetic on itself). An awe > in front of our ignorance, but also the discovery that such ignorance is > structured, productive, inexhaustible. > > > > > > > > > > So here I would say that PGC was just saying the normal thing. Most > rationalists believe in comp, and what follows has been peer reviewed > enough. (Then humans are humans, and the notoriety of some people makes > ideas having to wait they died before people talk and think, and special > interests and all that, so I admit the results are still rather ignored, > though some people seems to be inspired by them also, hard to say). > > > No that's not right. There are huge chains of unrefuted logic out > there. People don't sign up to those chains, they sign up to what they > accept. Scientists might reject comp if they hear what you've got to say. A > large number would not find that you sought to dominate their options in > comp very scientific. > > The problem here Bruno, is you act like they have responsibility to > automatelly go into that process with you, or they are in a position in > which they assume comp, and now they have to find a fault in your > reasoning, or they automatically assume UDA. > > > > Why not? > > Once a mathematician proves that there are irrational numbers, no one will > come back with a theory claiming that does not exist, or claiming that 2x^2 > = y^2 has non trivial integer solution. > > Computer science is a bran.... mathematics. Everyone can verify what I > say. That is science: people must follow, or explain where there is a flaw. > The only opposition of some scientists was that my work was too much easy, > like their two years old niece could find herself. I agree, but then she > should publish. > > Of course the subject makes easy to just ignore all this, because during > all the years of research, I was confronted with scientists just dislilink > the fundamental question, but also the quantum computer science, ... That > is common with *some* (not all of course) among the so called "pure > mathematicians" which just hates applications (and logic was considered as > a branch of pure mathematics by some logicians who j > You didn't address my points..beause ng out of this in my experience when you stop addressing point you don't start again. No problem. You seem to be defining something new there Bruno. Looks a lot simpler than Popper's philosophy. Whereas he'd have to do C&R for however long, before he'd feel able to to say someone was a popperian. He would probably totally irrelevantly do that wait thing, until the person actually said they accepted his argument. You've also defined science apparently in terms of mathematical proofing. Apparently youj no longer need that 'test' you'vr been talking about. People will have to study it. It could be Popperians are now able to bypass conjecture and refutation process, for the vast majority of humanity. Pretty sure Deutsch is going to be making everyone in the world Popperian by lunchtime (on grounds Rationalism is unrefutated and all the major explanations in the set he's got are unrefuted for a while. So, I guess we're all popperians now, and Popperianism just got a lot simkpler. That's Occam for sure. Science gets a good deal to. We can get rid of peer review, scientific consensus...those idiots that say nothing is ever proven in science can shut up Baiscally, it doesn'tmatter the way you used here.....and I'm definitely not being not going to be engaging you envisionings of scientific method on this occasion. So have fun with it. Let me know what I believe sometime. -- 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.
