On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > no machine can correctly know which machine it is. >
As would be expected given the fact that matter is generic. > > It requires a personal bet on some substitution level. > And given the fact that every time the matter in your brain changes your first person experience changes and every time your first person experience changes the matter in your brain changes it seems like a very good bet indeed that matter is required for your personal experience. But any matter will do because it's generic. > > The fact that molecules needed to exist for water to be present is > irrelevalant if we need to assume primary physical objects > The irrelevant thing is that matter is primitive . Primitive or not molecules are needed for water to exist and primitive or not matter is needed for intelligence to exist You think mathematics alone is needed for intelligence and I think matter is also required, but neither of us think that intelligence is primitive , we both think it needs something . So I don't care i f matter is is p rimitive and I don't see why you should either. > You are the one in a perpetual ad hominem mode. > >> >> >> 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. > Harry Potter as depicted in in Rowling's books can perform real magic every bit as well as a Turing Machine depicted in a textbook on computer theory can perform real calculations. > > The notion of Turing machine does not assume anything in physics. > Then how does it assume the Turing Machine's tape is moved if the acceleration of the tape is not equal to the tape's mass divided by the force applied to it? For that matter how does anything move, how does anything change? > > > The physical implementation of a Turing machine needs the laws of physics. > And Harry Potter can perform magic, he just can't do the "physical implementation" of magic. And in Catholic transubstantiation bread and wine is turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, it's just not the "physical implementation" of Jesus. And if you believe that there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. > > The notion of implementation is definable in arithmetic. > Irrelevant. Definitions can not perform calculations, but matter that obeys the laws of physics can. > > 1+1=2 is true independently of the fact that one beer plus one beer gives > two beers. > Yes but the effect the numbers have is NOT independent of what the numbers represent; the fact that one beer plus one one beer is 2 beers will effect my decision to have a third beer, but one rock plus one rock equals 2 rocks will not. So apparently numbers can't tell the entire physical story alone, something more is needed, something like matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > Once you assume you survive trhough a digital emulation, even physical, > you survive for all digital emulation, > I agree, but there is zero evidence that anything can emulate anything unless matter that obeys the laws of physics is involved. > > Computability, computations, in the Turing-Church-Post-Kleene-Markov sense > has just nothing to do with work, forces, etc. > Then things in the Turing-Church-Post-Kleene-Markov sense can compute no better than Harry Potter can in the JK Rowling sense. > > The only difference is that you claim that we need PRIMAR matter, > *AHHHHH!! I DON'T CARE IF MATTER IS PRIMARY OR NOT! * How many times do I have to repeat that? > > >>> >> >>> 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, > I'm not arguing how matter came to be, I'm arguing that however it came to be you need it for consciousness and intelligence. > > > You are the one in a perpetual ad hominem mode. > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: " You are a bigot [...] You start your bigot handwaving again. [...] You spread the lies of some bigot philosophers " 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.
