On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 , Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > Your clearly ignore the entire field of philosophy of mind. >
You almost make that sound like a bad thing. > > Not all analog machine can be computable, > Yes some things are not computable. Turing proved that not all numbers are computable, in fact nearly all numbers are not computable; such is the nature of infinite sets that if you picked a point at random on the real number line there is a 100% chance it will be non computable. However except for random number generators every analog machine human beings have ever made is computable. And not only that but the fundamental laws of physics tell us that every machine we or anybody or anything else will ever build will also be computable. So when you say "not all analog machines are computable" what you really mean is "analog machines that can't be built can't be computed". > the litterature offers many ways to provide counter-example to comp > You invented the "Comp" word, "the literature" has no idea what "Comp" means and neither do I. > we have to exchange Aristotle conception of reality for the one by Plato. > The idea that somebody who died 2500 years ago can help us with answering cutting edge scientific questions of today is ridiculous. >> Nobody needs to assume computationalism because we already know for a >> fact that it's true, >> > > > God told you so? > No. > It looks more like physicalism, which is indeed often confused with > mechanism > And who caused that confusion? Philosophers of mind. They invented the word "physicalism" and the definition they gave it is "everything is physical" which gives me precisely as much information as saying "everything is klogknee", that is to say zero. Meaning needs contrast, "everything is physical" is equivalent to "nothing is physical" > I could have just ask you what you mean by "matter". > I have 2 answers to that, they both work, take your pick: 1) Fermions and Bosons. 2) Everything except for information. > From an apparent correlation between mind and brain activity, [...] > If it goes both ways then it's more than a correlation and that's what we've got in this case. Change the brain and the mind always changes. Change the mind and the brain always changes. And that is why nobody needs to assume computationalism (not to be confused with "comp") because we already know for a fact that it's true. John K Clark -- 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.
