On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> A purely mathematical Turing Machine is inferior to a physical >> >> Turing Machine >> >> > > > > With respect to be able to manifest a person relatively to you. > Relative to me and relative to everyone I know and relative to everyone they know and relative to everyone they know and ... .. in other words mathematical Turing Machines are inferior to physical Turing Machine s relative to all known instances of consciousness . That's pretty inferior. > > > But the argument show that the physical must still expalin where the > physical mode comes from. > No more than the mathematical must explain where the mathematical mode comes from. The chain of "explain this" arguments either comes to an end or it does not and as a result is infinite; if it does end then eventually you come to a primitive brute fact that has no explanation but just is. If it doesn't come to a end then nothing is fundamental. >> >> my physical brain needs to understand >> >> Robinson >> arithmetic and follow the script for it to be able to produce a result. >> > > > > And physics is not mentioned in that script. > A script is inert and irrelevant if nobody reads it. >> >> Conway's game of LIFE can't emulate a Turing Machine or anything else if >> the computer running the LIFE program is turned off, and neither can >> Robinson >> >> Arithmetic. >> >> > > > > > Physicalist huge misunderstanding of elementary computer science. > So if I corrected my HUGE misunderstood of elementary computer science I'd understand that turning off the computer running my program halfway through its run would have no effect on the output of the program. And I'd understand that teaching people this fact would make them better computer engineers; it would make them people Google would want to hire to run their computers. > > You assume a physical universe, > If there is evidence for something then it is not an assumption and there is, to put it mildly, evidence that physics exists. > > > They emulate each other, even if not emulated in the physical reality, or > you need to abandon the idea that 2+2=4. > You need to abandon the idea that statements like 2+2=4 can be differentiated from statements like 2+2=5 without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. I'm not saying truth doesn't exist without physics, I'm saying in the entire history of the world nobody has ever separated truth statements from false statements without using physics. >> >> if I want to know how much 2+2 is I have to think about it, and to think >> about something I need a physical brain. > > > > > You, yes, > Yes b ut if you're correct how do you explain that, why should it be? What does a physical brain do that pure abstract mathematics can not? > > > but that does not make the physical primary. > You confuse 2 entirely different questions: 1) Is matter primary? 2) Is matter needed for intelligence and consciousness? The answers are maybe and yes. > > It [matter] can still emerge from the infinities of computations (and thus > in arithmetic) Maybe yes maybe no, there is so evidence either way, but even if it's true that wouldn't change the fact that if you want intelligence and consciousness then you're going to have to produce matter at some point. Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but that doesn't change the fact that if you want water then at some point 2 Hydrogen atoms are going to have to get together with a Oxygen atom and make a molecule. >> >> >> I have yet to read a book so good it can think. >> >> Have you? > > > > Why would a book ever think. > You tell me. You're the one who believes a program doesn't need a computer to produce a result. > > > you have not yet understood the difference between a computation (like > those emulated in arithmetic) and a description of a computation (like > those we can find in books). > You have not yet understood that maybe mathematicians are right when they keep saying mathematics is a language and good mathematicians find statements describing something that they can write about in that language. You can put language in a book, language describing something, but nothing happens until a physical person reads that book. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
