On 19 Feb 2016, at 05:31, John Clark wrote:
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.
Not much indeed. I give the reason below.
Anyway, neither machine or number are conscious, only the person that
we can attach to it, and for this you need a number enough great to
encode a universal number relatively to RA or another universal number
(and to get matter, other conditions need to be fulfilled.
> 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.
u is, relatively to the chosen base phi_i. (and with the usual abuse
of language, as it is not the number u which do the thinking, but the
arithmetical reality of what u is doing.
Likewize a brain does not think, only the person supported by that
brain.
>> 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.
I have explaiend this many times. By primitive I mean "need to be
postulated to be present". Matter is considered as primitive means
that matter needs to be postulated to explain its appearance. With
mechanism, even postulating matter cannot justify the appearance, only
the statistics on the computation. That is the step 8, although
intuitively we can grasp it less rigorously by the fact that a
universal machine cannot infer from instrospection what is her
universal base.
Exercise for you or others, explain why this is not totally rigorous,
and why the step 8 is needed instead. Of course this asks for step 0
to step 7.
> 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.
Because it has been proved that materialism is epistemologically
incompatible with materialism. Your argument at step 3 has been
refuted by at least 5 members of this list, and you answer to this has
always been based on change of the definition or confusion between
first and third person discourse.
>>> 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".
No, it is called erroneous philosophy, or pseudo-science, or pseudo-
religion.
The very fact that you need to call that science illustrates it is not
science. Turing machine can add 2 and 2 without any matter at all,
they do that infinitely often in the arithmetical block mindscape. I
have explain this recently to you, but you never quoted it.
> 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.
To invoke your God will not help here.
> 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;
because there are evidence that nature is Turing universal, but that
programs will stop or not independently of any physical laws. It will
be the same in any combinatory algebra, or in arithmetic.
Actually, some would argue that in our physical reality we can bet
that it will always stop or loop, for the configuration of matter
cannot sustain such amount of ability, by the second law for example.
But that has no relevance. My point was that the fact that phi_i(j)
converges or not is a question in pure mathematics.
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.
In this case, but this is not relevant for the point that phi_i(j)
stops or not is a purely mathematical fact. Obviously any correct and
stable implementation will reflect that, notably the physical
implementations (except applied physicists would add that they are
never stable enough).
>> 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.
My program of reading such bs will stop, and I don't see why that
would make primary matter matter existing. Then for matter, the whole
point is that all machine can discover its appearance, and even its
logical reason in her head, as the UDA is Turing machine accessible,
that is the AUDA point.
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.
Then again it is up to you to explain how matter can do that, and why
no program can emulate that doing. If you fail, your point is invalid,
if you succeed, you refute computationalism. In both case you fail.
Like a creationist, you keep referring to your god to refute a logical
claim, and this by attirubuting to it magical abilities.
> 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) then all the computer
scientists and mathematical logicians are wrong because what I've
described above is how the world works.
Proof?
> 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.
Of course. But those textbook explains to human the point I was
making, and your output here is everything but related to my point.
You start your bigot handwaving again.
>> 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!
What is your problem then? You lost me here. I have never put any
doubt on matter, and I explained the fact that human or machine
consciousness needs matter. Indeed, that is exactly what the UDA
shows, except that the matter cannot be primary, and must be explained
by the statistics on the many parallel computations. Then I explained
formally how this fits with quantum logic, MW, etc.
>> 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.
Yes, it is a consequence of mechanism. I have never put this in doubt.
You attribute me things I have never said.
I think you changed the subject of the conversation.
> 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?
It is the person which is conscious, not the Peano axioms, which is
more like a body. Eventually this is made clear by the fact that G*
proves []p <-> []p & p, but the machine (or G) cannot know that. It is
the first person ([]p & p) which is conscious or have knowledge, not
her body or local representation/Gödel number "[]".
>> 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.
I think you are just starting again making gratuitous negative
proposition.
>> 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.
I have constructed one. See "Conscience et mechanism" for the codes,
or just read Boolos 1979, or just the Mendelson book.
You are not even trying to understand, you want just be negative,
without ever reading the arguments.
You are a bigot Aristotelian believer, incapable to doubt the second
God of Aristotle, or you suffer from a disproportionate ego, and
cannot change your mind, because you have already been too much more
insulting and you would look ridiculous, but you are wasting the time
of the list by writing very bad posts which spread your confusion.
Even in Brussels and Paris, you will not find a scientist who has any
problem with the results. You spread the lies of some bigot
philosophers, and illustrate how philosophy can be used as a tool to
hide results in scientific domain and slow down the progress.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
