On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> There >> >> is exactly ZERO evidence that the number "5" is intelligent or conscious > > > > > In which relation? > Perhaps you believe that question is worth answering, I most certainly do not. I don't think my statement "There is exactly ZERO evidence that the number 5 is intelligent or conscious" needs caveats or clarifications. > > > 5 is too little to be the code of a universal machine, but that does not > apply to any u such that phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y) > So I guess the ASCII characters "phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y)" are intelligent and conscious. > >> >> without exception everything that has demonstrated even the slightest >> amount of intelligence or consciousness has used matter that obeys the laws >> of physics. > > > > > But if that matter is need in some primitive way > I don't know what you mean by " some primitive way " but whatever you mean I'd bet money it's irrelevant. > > > then Mechanism is simply false, contradicting your preview claim. > And I have no idea how you got to that and I'm sure you don't either. > >>> >> >>> How could a universal Turing machine see the difference between >>> arithmetical and physical generic matter? >> >> > >> >> Easy, if a physical Turing machine that has access to physical building >> materials is programmed to make another physical Turing machine and >> then halt it then will eventually halt; but if it only has access to >> pure mathematics then it will never halt. And there is another way, if a >> Turing machine is able to add 2 and 2 then it knows it must be made of >> generic matter and not pure mathematics. > > > > > That is a sort of magic > [...] > That is the sort of magic that works, another name for it is "science". > > > which would contradict the very basic of computer science. > If you're right about that (and of course you're not) then the very basics of computer science has been contradicted because what I have described above is exactly precisely how the world operates. If you don't like that fact complain to nature not me. > > the halting problem has nothing to do with physics. > That is not true. Turing proved the halting problem has no solution, so sometimes there is no way to know in advance, even in theory , if a electronic computer that is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics will ever stop; so if you want to know what it will do you just have to watch the physical system and see ; mathematics provides no shortcut to figure out what physics will do . > > >> >> And there is another way, if a Turing machine is able to add 2 and 2 then >> it knows it must be made of generic matter and not pure mathematics. > > > > > I was asking how it could know that. > I told you. Program the Turing machine to add 2 and 2 and if it produces a 4 then stop. If the Turing machine stops then it knows it is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. And if the Turing machine does not stop then it knows it is made of nothing but pure mathematics. Well OK... that's not quite true, if it's made of nothing but pure mathematics it will not know that, it will know absolutely nothing. > >> However if it's a purely mathematical Turing machine then >> it's true, >> it couldn't tell the difference between arithmetical and physical generic >> matter >> , >> and in fact couldn't tell the difference between >> any >> 2 >> things, >> and couldn't see anything or >> think anything or >> calculate anything or DO anything >> at all. >> > > > > Then all the computer scientists and mathematical logicians are wrong. > If you're right (and of course you are not) t hen all the computer scientists and mathematical logicians are wrong because what I've described above is how the world works. > > > this means only they did not grasp the very basic of theoretical computer > science, which embeds itself into arithmetic, as proved in many textbooks. > Textbooks can not think nor perform calculations, to do that matter that obeys the laws of physics must be organized in the correct way, and although textbooks are made of matter their organization is not right. >> >> I said it before I'll say it again, it makes no difference if matter is >> primary or not because if you want intelligence or consciousness you're >> going to need matter. > > > > But we are discussing the existence of primary matter. > As I've said over and over, that isn't the question I'm discussing, I don't care if matter is primary or not! > >> >> Molecules are not primary but if you want water you're going to need >> them. > > > > > You are changing the subject. > My subject has never changed, generic matter (maybe primitive maybe not) is needed for intelligence and consciousness. > > PA's consciousness makes > [blah blah] > Just so everybody is clear about this, Bruno Marchal believes that the Peano Axioms are conscious! What about the multiplication table? >> >> >> To hell with definitions, you can define a dragon as a fire breathing >> animal and the definition is clear and unambiguous, but that doesn't mean >> it exists. > > > > > PA does not exist? ZF does not exist? > No, your understanding of "Löbian machines" does not exist. >> >> You haven't really understood something until you know how to construct it >> , >> and Turing explained in detail exactly precisely how to build one of his >> machines. > > > > > That consists to define existence by physical existence, but in the theory > derived from computationalism, we use only the rule P(n) ===> ExP(x). We > don't assume Aristotle theology. > Or to say the same thing more concisely and with less bafflegab, you don't understand what a "Löbian machine" is and thus cannot construct one. That's the difference between you and Turing, he understood his machine and that's why he could and actually did make one. 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.
