On 19 Feb 2016, at 21:23, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> 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.
Translated from the original bafflegab: "Yes, the ASCII
characters are intelligent and conscious.
Not at all. You don't get it. Intelligence and consciousness is no
more in the ASCII characters than in the number u above, or in the
hydrogen atoms or in neurons. It is in trueness of the genuine
(digital) relation between those things.
Likewize a brain does not think, only the person supported by that
brain.
Don't be ridiculous, thinking is what a brain does just as going
fast is what a racing car does.
No, a brain is required, it is Turing universal, but it supports many
levels of Turing universality, and no machine can correctly know which
machine it is. It requires a personal bet on some substitution level.
We will copy ourselves (and catually already do that in the
biologicval way) much before we understand ourselves, which actually
is only possible in a limited non normative sense. Universal machine
are unknown for themselves, but can deduce invariant, like the Löb
formula, from sets of some primitive beliefs (like PA, ZF, ...).
> By primitive I mean "need to be postulated to be present".
Molecules are needed for water to be present,
We talk about hypothesis in a fundamental theory.
The fact that molecules needed to exist for water to be present is
irrelevalant if we need to assume primary physical objects to get the
correct physical appearance and prediction in a fundamebtal theory
(relating correctly the first person views with the third person
views, in the diverses mode made possible by the logic of self-
reference.
> Your argument at step 3 has been refuted by at least 5
members of this list,
If the "refutations" were any good 5 would be unnecessary,
one would have been sufficient.
No, because you changed your argument and made different mistakes.
And there were many more than 5 but most were just insults or
incoherent ravings and none were worth more than a bucket
of cold spit.
Show a link. You are the one in a perpetual ad hominem mode.
> Turing machine can add 2 and 2 without any matter at all,
they do that infinitely often in the arithmetical block mindscape.
And Harry Potter can perform magic in JK Rowling's fictional
mindscape.
But if the teacher of your kid teach them that it exists a natural
number x such that x + 7 = 17, you will not take your kids out of the
school, which I would certainly do if they taught that there exist a
guy call harry Potter and doing all those magical things.
> To invoke your God will not help here.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
You just cannot refute a proof in a theory by invoking a metaphysical
commitment. That is what you were doing.
> there are evidence that nature is Turing universal, but that
programs will stop or not independently of any physical laws.
A Turing Machine only works because of the laws of physics,
The notion of Turing machine does not assume anything in physics.
The physical implementation of a Turing machine needs the laws of
physics.
The notion of implementation is definable in arithmetic. It happens
that many subsystems in the physical worlds can imitate for some time
the universal numbers relations, but that does not made those
relations physical.
1+1=2 is true independently of the fact that one beer plus one beer
gives two beers. Once you assume you survive trhough a digital
emulation, even physical, you survive for all digital emulation, be
them physical, combinatorial, arithmetical, and universal universal
will do.
The only problem is that from the first person point of view, what
determine the "normal histories" is a probability measure on the
activity (in the base theory, say arithmetic) on all universal numbers
computations below your substitution level, on which you have a part
of personal choice, depending to whom you think you are.
for example F=MA. If that physical law were not true the machine's
tape could not be moved so there would be no reason to worry about
when it would stop because the machine would never even start.
Computability, computations, in the Turing-Church-Post-Kleene-Markov
sense has just nothing to do with work, forces, etc. I means in their
defining concepts. Of course there are interesting relations, but the
whole point is that if your consciousness is invariant for physical
digital substition, then it is invariant for digital substitution.
That entails a many-histories internal interpretation of elementary
arithmetic.
You can taxe the entities there as zombies, but then tell me what is
the physical reality which is not Turing emulable nor FPI recoverable.
And all I show is how to test that physically. Without QM, I would
have suspected computationalism to be false.
>> 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?
You're the one making extraordinary claims not me,
Soryy but *you* are the one making an ontological commitment. I am
agnostic on both Gods and Primary-Matter, or even numbers.
In the Universal Dovetailer Argument, the only assumption is that
consciousness is invariant for a physical digital substitution
(mechanism) + Church thesis (whose explanation requires being ok with
elementary arithmetic.
In AUDA the only assumption is Robinson Arithmetic, and then I use
classical standard definitions.
and extraordinary claims ( like arithmetic is intelligent and
conscious)
I explain what is meant by that, and eventually, I show how to test
that experiementaly, and I recover quantum logic at the place needed
for the measure on the FPI, which should give physics.
And I never said things as fuzzy than "arithmetic is intelligent". I
say that PA is intelligent in some context where intelligence and
consistency can be related. You rarely quote well, and you misquote
often in a confusing innappropriate way., confirming the theory of
some according to which you do that on purpose.
My claim is just, oh look, we can test classical computationalism, and
thanks to Gödel and QM, it fits.
Your claim is "You shall never doubt the second God of Aristotle:
Primary Matter or Physicalism".
requires extraordinary evidence yet you have none.
You might perhaps one day open my work, and begin to study it.
And all you have is a very silly "proof" that completely falls apart
less than halfway through.
Saying is not proving.
>> 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.
The problem, which I'm certain you already know, is that you
believe the caveat "human or machine" is necessary in the above
sentence but I do not.
Nor do I.
The only difference is that you claim that we need PRIMAR matter, or
at least you based your (sort of) critics of the "arithmetical
translation of the UDA" sometimes on that claim or equivalent.
>>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.
Now you've lost me. What are we arguing about?
That if the goal is immortality, we don't need artificial brains,
unlike if we want to see the nest soccer cups, and then the next one,
etc.
>>> 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.
And both the person and the body are made of matter that obeys the
laws of physics. So what are we arguing about?
That the point above explains the appearance of that matter, of which
my body is made, from a measure on the histories shared by an infinity
of arithmetical Turing machine "sufficiency" close relative states.
That is made 100% precise through the use of the self-reference logic
intensional variant on the Sigma_1 sentences.
Up to now, it works.
Some people on this list have said I'm a rude name caller, but I
have never called you a bigot.
Thanks for that, John, but by bigot, I mean someone unable to doubt
some ontological commitment, and as I explain above, it looks like
sometimes you slip into one, and get stuck.
The extraordinary claim is the claim that some have solve the mind-
body problem, or the afterlife problem, etc. I only refute Aristotle
theology in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis.
On this list, I am the skeptical, I am the one doubting what some take
for granted, or defend like a dogma.
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.
