On 30 Jul 2014, at 15:13, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Quentin Anciaux
<[email protected]> wrote:
2014-07-29 16:30 GMT+02:00 John Clark <[email protected]>:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> whatever a computer does is "just" the movement of electrons
around circuits
>> And whatever a human brain does is "just" the movement of
molecules and ions around neurons. That word "just" sure covers a
lot!
> Hence the quote marks. Don't worry I "just" love being quoted out
of context.
I wasn't trying to criticize you, I understand that you were using
the word "just" in the same way I was.
> If that proves a computer can't be conscious then it also proves
that humans aren't conscious; and except for me maybe that's the case.
> It supposedly proves that the materialist paradigm doesn't explain
consciousness
Then it also explains why a human being can never be conscious, but
I know for a fact that at least one human being is. And if changing
the material in my brain changes my consciousness (and it most
certainly does) and changes in consciousness changes the material in
my brain (and it most certainly does) then in what sense does
materialism fail to explain consciousness?
> according to comp
I can't comment on that, "comp" means whatever Bruno wants it to
mean, and that changes from day to day.
Sure Liar Clark... as said a million times now, comp is a shorthand
for *computationalism* and it has always meant that... and always
will... the only retarded changing the meaning day to day is you.
I applaud your firmness on this as his tireless repetition has the
same effect as spam/advertising sensationalism... regardless of the
vacuity, you just start singing the jingle in your head. The leaders
of the chart on this list are:
1) Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
2) There is nothing in step 3 to understand.
3) (Some final personal attack to distract from discussion closing
the post, like:) Bruno Marchal is not a logician.
The repetition is low resolution brainwash.
I appreciate a lot John Clark's contributions on astrophysics and
that he engages UDA up to step 3 however, but I think everybody can
see why his "arguments" always culminate in personal attack.
Good. I am not hallucinating!
Better than to keep reacting like monkey to his post, which I do,
would be imho for the list to focus on precise prerequisites,
exercises, reading lists to get firmer grasp of AUDA, and make that
more universally accessible than perhaps overemphasizing Step 7 and
MGA.
Yes, I know everybody comes at it from differing background, but
AUDA with more generalized, clear sequence of pedagogical felicity
conditions would be cool. I know it's out there in bits and pieces
in different threads; but to bundle and focus it would be nice.
For AUDA people needs to have an idea of how Gödel translated
metamathemtical question about a theory T in the arithmetical language
that T "understand", that is, proves or justfies.
But the ultimate modal logic (G) can be explained also with the helps
of the Knight Knaves Island of Smullyan.
AUDA exploits all the nuances brought by incompleteness. By
incompleteness, although []p, []p & p, [] & <>p, []p & <>p & p, all
see the same (sigma_1 complete part) of reality, but they obeys
different logics, which remains stable for the consistent, and
arithmetically sound theories, which are needed for having the
"correct" comp physics.
It would be a fine step forward, if the list and Bruno could advance
on sharing these kinds of questions, "just do it" style, instead of
servicing the meta spam and droning on about UDA, Step 7 and MGA.
Oh! I would not call that meta spam. I mean compare with John Clark on
step 3.
Maybe resurrecting an old thread that I haven't seen could stop
having to start from scratch. Just my virtual 2 cents. Apologies for
length, but not much time :-) PGC
I see that my proposition to profit of summer to make a bit of
combinators did not meet much success.
COMP is before all for computer science, but people seems shy to put
the foot in the science itself. For AUDA, it is mandatory, I'm afraid.
Bruno
--
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.
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.
