On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation is not a > physical notion,
No, John Clark does not agree with that. > > > because he defines physical computation by a computation done in physics. Because John Clark can find no evidence that computation *NOT* done in physics exists, and INTEL can't find any evidence for it either. The only reason John Clark talks about " physical computation " and not just "computation" is that unlike John Clark Bruno Marchal thinks there is a type of computation that isn't physical. John K Clark > On 05 Oct 2015, at 00:52, Kim Jones wrote: > > >> >> On 1 Oct 2015, at 3:25 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> When I say "physical computation" and you demand a definition of that >>> and when I respond with "a computation done with physics" and you demand a >>> definition of that too then I believe it is perfectly acceptable for me to >>> either get off the silly definition merry-go-round or to demand a >>> definition of my own, a definition of definition. >>> >> >> You are here painting yourself with a very fine brush as what you are. An >> academic. A useless bloody argumentative broom handle-up-the-arse straighto >> from the planet Dork. You are out to win argument only, not boldly explore >> consequences of interesting ideas. That is beyond you; you are a mental >> midget; the equivalent of someone who thinks its really smart to shoot a >> giraffe or a lion and then pose for a photo against the carcass. You just >> love it when people engage with you at all over anything at all because >> this allows you to indulge in this very sporting activity favourite. You >> are sick. This list might have moved on from this ridiculous bottleneck >> years ago but for you. There used to be a lively exchange of ideas going on >> here. >> > > Academic? No need to insult people. The only thing which matters is that > his argument are invalid. Not all academic are invalid when thinking on > this subject, and very often non-academic can be invalid, which is normal > as the TOE has to be highly counter-intuitive if it can manage both mind > and matter, as the platonist understood well when creating theology, math > and physics. > > Note that here John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a > computation is not a physical notion, because he defines physical > computation by a computation done in physics. So he lost the point. > Unfortunately we can expect the usual self-deny and the handwaving. > > Bruno > > > > >> Kim >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
