On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> 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. > > > > > you need to define what you mean by wet. > No I most certainly do not need to do that! Any definition of wet that I give would be made of words and I have no doubt you would then demand another definition of at least one of those words which I could only provide with yet more words and round and round we go. It would be much better if I gave an example not a definition, it would be much better if I threw a bucket of water at you then pointed at you and said "wet". >> >> >> 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 keep saying that, and yet in spite of the fact that it would be trivial for you to do so you have been unable to explain why you have not started The Marchal Computer Hardware Company and you have been unable to explain why you are not a trillionare. > >> >> 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! > > > > > google a bit more on "Kleene predicate" > I don't want to google "Kleene predicate" and I don't want another "proof" and I don't want a definition!!! I want an *EXAMPLE*, I want to see you or anybody or anything else calculate 2 +2 without using matter! > > Or read any textbook, or Gödel's original paper > I don't want to read any textbook , I don't want to read Gödel's original paper ! I want an *EXAMPLE*, I want to see you calculate 2 +2 without using matter! >> >> 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, > YES, and that is exactly precisely why asking what one and only one city "you" will see in a world with "you" duplicating machines in it is not a question at all, it is gibberish. > > > You continue to introduce an ambiguity by ignoring the 1p/3p difference, > In the entire history of the world nobody, absolutely nobody, has ignored the difference between 1p and 3p. > > > we must still take into account the content of the 1p experiences, > Who's 1p experience? Mr. You's. And who is Mr. You? The guy with THE 1p experience . And round and round we go. > > > ignoring that when your body is in tow places, all your possible > subjective experiences' content mention only one place. > Who's subjective experiences are only in one place? Mr. You's. And who is ..... 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.
