On 03 Sep 2015, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just one remark: we cannot make a piece of matter wet in
arithmetic
I know, but why not? If arithmetic is more fundamental than
physics as you say then we should be able to write a program that
would get the computer wet, and yet we can't and your theory can not
give an adequate explanation of why not.
To do this, you need to define what you mean by wet. If it involve
primary matter, then the theory explains why arithmetic cannot
produce that, as there is no primary matter. If you define wet without
using primary matter, then it depends on the definition you will give
of wet.
> but once we postulate computationalism, we can prove that all
the piece of computations leading to the first person experience of
feeling wet, or clenching your thirst, exist in arithmetic
Computationalism postulates that the computations a PHYSICAL
computer produce can create intelligent behavior and consciousness,
but computationalism does NOT postulate that computations exist in
arithmetic independent of physics.
The fact that computations exist in arithmetic is a trivial theorem.
You don't need to assume the "Yes Doctor" part of computationalism,
but either Church's thesis, or Church's definition of computation, is
enough to prove that.
Show me a example of arithmetic all by itself making a calculation
and you have won this argument, not a definition, not a proof, an
EXAMPLE. Stop talking about it and just show me!
This should help, if not google a bit more on "Kleene predicate"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_T_predicate
Or read any textbook, or Gödel's original paper which does this for an
important subclass, (the primitive recursive function) and then you
can conceive the generalization.
> I will please you and not use pronouns
Bruno Marchal just did.
> someone asked JC, before the duplication, what do you expect
to live. JC remarked that "you" is ambiguous. Oh, but you agreed
that you will survive,
And JC responded: "Yes "you" will survive provided that "you" is
defined as somebody who remembers being a man in Helsinki,
But that is ambiguous, because if the guy (who remembers being the man
who was in Helsinki) is now in both city, it is still true that bith
the 3-he feels to be in one city from the 1p view.
You continue to introduce an ambiguity by ignoring the 1p/3p
difference, where we have insisted that we have to make it to address
the question asked.
but if that personal pronoun is defined in some other way
That never happens. But once we have defined it, we must still take
into account the content of the 1p experiences, given that the
question bears on that (future) content.
or, as often happens on this list, not defined at all then JC might
have a different answer to "will you survive" or have no answer at
all because gibberish has no answer".
That is eminently true, but you are the one aking the question
gibberish by ignoring that when your body is in tow places, all your
possible subjective experiences' content mention only one place.
>so you expect to live some experience, no?
Explain what that GODDAMN personal pronoun "you" means and JC
will provide an answer! Bruno's "I will please you and not use
pronouns" promise sure didn't last long.
It did, as "you" is used before the duplication, and you have agreed
there is no ambiguity at that moment.
Try better as you repeat the same old stuff which has been debunked by
everyone since a long time.
Bruno
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.
