On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > theology remains taboo, > Theology remains stupid because it's the study of nothing, so both experts and novices have exactly the same level of knowledge of the subject. Zero. Theology isn't taboo, theology is a laughingstock > > > indeed, by definition theology is > the study of a grey amorphous vague ill defined blob named "God" that does nothing and that nobody has ever seen. >> >> >> I don't know what >> " >> singularize consciousness >> " >> means >> > > > > The illusion that we are one person in one world. > That makes no sense. Both illusion and consciousness are perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon, so if *we* (damn pronouns) have the illusion that *we* (damn pronouns) are one person in one world then *we* (damn pronouns) probably are. And the only reason John Clark said "probably" was because of those damn pronouns. > >> >> I'm not talking about "primitive matter" and am not interested in it. > > > > > Then you should not invoke it in your arguments. Name one time I invoked "primitive matter" in my arguments that intelligence needs matter. *ONE TIME!* >> >> >> There is at least as much evidence that you've got it backwards and >> matter implies the existence of arithmetic; > > >> > Too much vague. > Which word didn't you understand? >> >> >> 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 Marchalcannot 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 we agree, mathematics is a language as is English. > >> >> 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. > I agree that truth is different from language. English can talk about the truth and so can mathematics, but English can also talk about things that don't exist and so can mathematics. Both languages are capable of writing fiction and nonfiction. And even a well written English novel with no plot holes is still fiction; and even a mathematical proof that is logically self consistent might be fictitious too. If mathematics is indeed a language it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that some mathematical statements, even self consistent ones, are fictitious. > > >> Then it can't do anything. > > > >> > You assume again physicalism and/or primary matter. > I don't give a damn if matter is primary, all I know is it's needed to do things; show me a purely mathematical Turing Machine that can do something, anything, and I'll change my mind. > > Did Alcor propose you an analog brain? > No. All Alcor promises to do is to use extreme cold to retain as much information in my brain as they can when I die. Given the present state of technology they can do nothing more. > >> >> >> When somebody makes a AI worthy of the name (probably in less than 40 >> years and possibly much less) > > > > > It is done. > No it has not been done. When a AI worthy of the name is made you will know, everybody will know because the world will change beyond all recognition. >> >> the debate is over and so is the mind-body problem. > > > > > Thanks to you deny of the FPI, sure! > I issue the following challenge, find one person on the face of the Earth who denies the existence of the first person. I don't think you can do it. >> >> >> RA can't compute 2+2. > > > > > Word play. > AKA thinking. > > > your Aristotelian believe in Primary matter, > Well... I don't can if matter is primary or not and I think Aristotle was a fool, but other that that your above statement is fine, provided of course you don't care what words mean. > > the non-agnostic type of atheism is a very slight variant of > fundamentalist christianism. > Wow, not just slight but *VERY SLIGHT*, the man said fundamental Christianity is a *VERY SLIGHT* variant of atheism. Well... as I said that's fine provided you don't care what words mean and just like to type sequences of ASCII characters. 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.
