On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
TO HELL WITH ARISTOTLE AND TO HELL WITH GOD! > > > >OK, nice, again this is equivalent, in your language, with "to hell with > primary matter", but of course contradicts again "to hell with Plato". > It contradicts nothing because today a bright 5th grader knows more science and mathematics and philosophy than Aristotle and Plato put together. And if you're right and God is arithmetic then the 5th grader knows more than God too because arithmetic knows nothing. > > Plato is just the doubt of primary matter. > I'M NOT INTERESTED IN PRIMARY MATTER, I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR INTELLIGENCE. Sorry for the all caps but you seem hard of hearing so I thought I'd better shout. > > >>> >> >>> With the definition of god of the greek, indian, chinese, there is no >>> doubt that everybody believe in God. >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, even I believe that grey vague blobs that do nothing of importance >> exist. > > > > Your usual trick: changing the definition. > You, the high priest of the Peano Postulate God, accuse me of messing with the definition of God?! > > I thought we did define God by the origin of all things, the creator, or > the reason of reality or everything real, > Your buddies the ancient Greeks believed that a God was just somebody more powerful than a human was, and even a supreme being was just the top being but not a infinitely powerful one that was responsible for everything. But everybody agrees that God is a intelligent conscious PERSON, or at least everybody agrees except for those who are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D. > > > the definition of God, on which 99,9% agree: if God did not exist, nothing > would exist. > Most would agree that the number one non-negotiation attribute that God must have is to be a PERSON. And I have a hunch that somewhat less than 99.9% would agree that arithmetic is God, not even Robinson arithmetic . > > > BTW, and you did provide evidence that you consider you as important > (which might be your motivation for immortality, also). > Huh? >> >> >> as I've said over and over and over and over, matter or may >> N >> ot be primary but it is certainly needed for intelligence. > > > > > That is ambiguous at the extreme. > Which word didn't you understand? > >> >> I don't care if that matter is primary or not. > > > > My point in this thread was that I consider dangerous to say "yes" to an > unknown doctor of the future, and that it was vain if the goal was > immortality. > What does that have to do with the primacy of matter? > > It seems to me that you did use the idea that some matter was needed to be > assumed for an implementation of the relevant program could "be conscious". > Yes, but I don't need to assume that the matter used is fundamental, it may be but that is a entirely different question. I do believe however that intelligence and consciousness are linked for reasons I have previously given. >> >> >> I'd better repeat that because apparently you're a little hard of >> hearing: I DON'T CARE IF MATTER IS PRIMARY OR NOT. Should I say it again? > > > > > So please try to stop using argument that a Turing machine needs matter to > be thinking, > I will do no such thing. A Turing machine needs matter not just to think but to do ANYTHING; the matter may or may not be primary but it's got to be there. It doesn't matter if water is fundamental or not (it isn't) you're going to need water to quench your thirst. > > >>> >> >>> science has not decided between Plato and Aristotle >> >> > >> >> Yes it has, science decided about 400 years ago that both are irrelevant. > > > > Irrelevant with respect to what? > Science. You couldn't figure that out on your own? > > The current paradigm is Aristotelian. > Most modern scientists know just as much about Aristotle as the need to. Nothing. > > > Gödel was even more serious on this and open to the idea that > theology comes back in science. > Godel was a great genius but he was also a nut and during the last few years of his life was completely insane. > > Once you agree that matter might not be primary, you have to be open to > other primary axioms. > But I see no reason to doubt that matter is needed for intelligence. > > > If you agree that matter might not be primary, > My hunch is matter is primary but I could be wrong. > > > then the point you made is refuted at the start. > I don't see why. > > > You can no more say that pure arithmetic can't generate consciousness by > invoking the money success of physical computer corporation, because in the > arithmetical reality too consciousness needs the appearance of matter to > develop and differentiate, and make money by selling physical computers. > No computer company makes money off of consciousness, they make money from intelligent behavior, and for that matter is needed. And if Darwin was right and Evolution produced me then intelligent behavior and consciousness must be linked. 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.
