On 10 May 2015, at 02:08, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> No free will = deterministic behaviour.
Free will = random behavior.
No Russell is right. The modern conception of free-will is
deterministic behavior.
> Lots of things have been found capable of universal computation,
Bullshit.
<sigh>
> including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all.
No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other
that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy.
<sigh>
You confuse the notion of computation discovered by the
mathematicians, with the notion of physical implementation of
computation, defined by using physics and the mathematical definition.
You do revisionism.
> In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all,
without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity.
And all observers are made of matter that obey the laws of physics.
> I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't
want to look
at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner
who can
add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a
computer hardware company and crush the competition because our
> You can't have a computer _hardware_ company selling abstract
computers!!!
I know, that's why you and Bruno are talking nonsense.
Well, wait the day they put patent on idea and theorem. You will pay
taxes for the number of use you made of the modus ponens!
> You are confusing mind and brain.
I said "I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2
separate
programs simultaneously" and you responded with " But it can't
simultaneous experience being two different persons". Mind is what a
brain does and running programs is what a computer does,
This is what is refuted, and you take that for granted, by stopping
with anybody knowing why at step 3.
We have stopped to take seriously on this, as you have not succeeded
in saying what you don't understand, as you invoke an ambiguity, and
when we shows the precision, you said just "pee-pee".
Bruno
so a blind man in a fog bank could see that its you not me who is
confusing mind and brain.
>> the consciousness of the intelligent conscious program doesn't
change in "the here and now" even if it's rerun a trillion times
because none of the virtual landmarks change, subjectively it would
be exactly the same if the program was only run once. And the same
would be true if you play back a recording of the consciousness;
such a playback may be of use to a third party watching it but it
would do nothing to the intelligent conscious program itself.
> I think we're in agreement here. I think the way physical
supervenience is used in the MGA is confusing for exactly this reason.
I think your use of the word "supervenience" is confusing.
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.
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.
