On 23 Feb 2016, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> or put in another way, to the First Person
Indeterminacy (FPI): the fact that no machine can know
*introspectively* which computations support it among the
infinitely many emulated
> The word "which" implies that only one was responsible,
> Why only one?
Why indeed! Why are you asking me?
> It can be an infinite set of computations.
So the failure to be able to answer the question "which one?" does
not portend some deep philosophical discovery, it's just a silly
question.
Which one does not imply one.
> we are doing metaphysics or theology, not physics.
I know, and I think that's why we're not getting anywhere.
Philosophers have not done any philosophy in at least 400 years and
theologians have never done anything interesting.
You are ignorant on the origin of math and physics, and mathematical
logic.
It is only due to a social pressure for professionalization that
mathematician feels obliged to abandon their link with platonist
philosophy, but that made the 19th century attempt of
professionalization of theology failing, and so theology remains
taboo, but it is is the origin of science, indeed, by definition
theology is the study of the unfication of all knoweldge and mode of
knoweldge. Don't confuse it with what the roman empire has done with it.
> But my point is that we cannot use primitive matter to
singularize consciousness.
I don't know what "singularize consciousness"
The illusion that we are one person in one world.
means and I don't care because I'm not talking about "primitive
matter" and am not interested in it.
Then you should not invoke it in your arguments.
>>The failure of step 3 means step 8 shows nothing.
> Actually that is false, as step 8 is independent.
If no steps precede it why is it called "step 8"? I always thought
7 things proceeded 8.
I have already explained this. Step 8 is the Movie Graph Argument.
When made after step seven, it is used to eliminated the move of those
who invoke a small (without universal dovetailing) physical primary
universe. Used alone, it is only a toll to explain the mind-body
problem in the digital mechanist frame.
> If in Helsinki the guy predict "W v M", all copies will write
in their diaries: "I was [blah blah blah]"
I'm sick to death of the Helsinki guy, and even more fed up with
all those stupid personal pronouns with no clear referent in a
"proof" that is supposed say something about the nature of personal
identity!
You keep lying on this. Personal identity is not the subject of the
Universal Doevtailer Argument at all. We have agreed enough on
personal identity to accept that the W and the M guys are the same
guys as the Helsinki person, depsite becoming different (due to the
duplication), and both assess only "W v M" in all case. S
I see that you are back to your old trick: the pronoun is the subject
of the thesis. Each have their personal mathematics, and all provable
and non provable relations between them are done in all details, but
you need to study the basic part of computer science, or at least read
my posts and papers, and ask quesion on what I say, and not what you
attribute me but never say.
But if a name was used instead of a vague personal pronoun there
would be no place to hide ambiguity and the silliness of the
"proof" would be obvious to everyone.
This has been refuted in all details. I did that more than once, just
to show that it changes nothing. There are no ambiguity when you get
the difference between the 1-self and the 3-selves, be them described
by pronouns or by name.
> arithmetic implies the existence of the appearance of matter.
There is at least as much evidence that you've got it backwards
and matter implies the existence of arithmetic;
Too much vague.
but it would make no difference even if you're right, matter would
still be needed for the existence of intelligence just as molecules
are needed for the existence of water even though molecules are not
fundamental.
The difference is shown measurable by comparing the logic of the
observable extracted from digital mechanism and the logic of the
observable inferred from nature. That has been done, and up to now
computationalism leads to quantum logic and quantum informatics
confirming it.
It can be a coincidence, of course, but the chance for this are quite
low.
>> Most mathematicians insist that mathematics is a language
> That is false. Only non mathematicians speculate on this, and
that has been refuted by Gödel,
Godel proved that some things are true but cannot be asserted
in mathematical language, but we've known for a very long time that
exactly the same thing is true of the English language. For example:
"Bruno Marchal cannot consistently assert this sentence."
It's true but Bruno Marchal cannot say it. It had been
thought that mathematics avoided the frailties of human language but
Godel proved that was not so.
Which makes exactly my point.
>> so I don't see why it [mathematics] can't be used to
write fantasy that corresponds to no physical reality just as
English can.
> If you think that 2+2=4 is a fantasy, then I am not sure I
can explain you anything.
I never said it was. 2+2=5 is a fantasy because 2 physical
objects and 2 physical objects never equal 5 physical objects, and
because 2+2=5 can produce logical contradictions, but 2+2=5 is still
a equation written in the mathematical language.
So you agree that mathematical truth is different from mathematical
language. Good.
And many fictional books have plot hole, but they're still novels
written in the English language.
Yes, but fictinal story can change, not 2+2=4, unless we are talking
of something else. You make my point.
>>> Turing's tape is not physical.
>> Then it can't do anything.
> It can't do anything physical
Then it can't do anything.
You assume again physicalism and/or primary matter. But then the
argument shows you should better not say "yes" to the digitalist
doctor. Did Alcor propose you an analog brain?
> the goal has never been to do AI, but to solve the mind-body
problem. You can't change the subject in the middle of a
conversation.
When somebody makes a AI worthy of the name (probably in less
than 40 years and possibly much less)
It is done. We can only make machine more stupid for now. But that is
another debate.
the debate is over and so is the mind-body problem.
Thanks to you deny of the FPI, sure!
> The existence of computer and of all stopping computations
(the universal dovetailing) can be proved in RA.
That's nice, but RA can't compute 2+2.
Word play.
> See Epstein & Carnielli's book
Epstein & Carnielli's book can't compute 2+2 either.
Word play, as we both agree that books don't think, but a book is not
a (universal) number or combinator or program at all.
> or the one by Boolos and Jeffrey.
Neither can the book by Jeffrey.
You could refute string theory by mentioning that no book in the
biblio are superstrings.
> Or Martin Davis Dover's book "computability and
Unsolvability".
The Martin Davis book can't compute worth a damn either, that's
why INTEL is still in business.
> A theorem is not supposed to do computation.
A theorem is a program used by a brain made of matter that
obeys the laws of physics to discover something true. And a
program without a computer is totally useless.
I understand better why you really want step 3 false, to save your
Aristotelian believe in Primary matter, and computationalism. Sorry,
but that has been refuted in all details, which you manage to ignore
under your many rhetorical tricks.
You confirm, if that was still necessary, that the non-agnostic type
of atheism is a very slight variant of fundamentalist christianism.
That is why the idea that the greeks were serious in theology, and
that we might try to be as well, is still not acceptable for you.
Non fundamentalist christians and agnostic atheists are usually aware
that the mind-body problem is not yet solved, and is indeed a very
difficult problem, notably because it refutes the existence of primary
matter, which you are not interested in (opportunistically), but that
you use all the time (opportunistically).
Your procedure are transparent for everyone, but don't hesitate to
continue in case some have not yet understood.
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.
