On 29 Feb 2016, at 00:22, John Clark wrote:
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.
God is not arithmetic, but arithmetical truth, in the sense that we
defined God by whatever is responsible for your existence, and that it
has been proved that a machine cannot see the difference netween
whatever is responsible for its existence and arithmetical truth,
which she cannot name or define, but still approximate and point to.
But that belongs to G* minus G, so no machine can assert this without
doing a machine-theological sort of blaspheme.
It is delicate, but the use of the logic of self-reference clarifies
this.
Your opinion about Plato and Aristotle seems based on your not
studying it only. You seem to ignore the history of science.
> 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.
Then, please, don't use primary matter implicitly in your argument,
also, your interest is not relevant in this thread. You can't change
the subject conversation each time I show your reasoning being invalid.
>>> 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,
You confuse again arithmetical truth, that is the model or semantic of
any theory (RA, PA, ...)
Peano Arithmetic is for a theory or a machine, which are few beliefs,
closed for the application of classical logic. Sometimes I identify it
with the (RE) set of its theorem.
You can identify Arithmetical Truth (a reasonable notion of God for
the machine) with the set of gödel number of the arithmetical true
sentences, but that set is NOT RE, not sigma_1, not pi_1, not sigma_2,
nor pi_2, ... Actually it does not belong to that hierarchy. You can't
define it in arithmetic. You need analysis, or machine needs strong
meta-assumptions, some can be analytical, but G and G* remains
invariant for that.
Arithmetical truth plays the role of God, indeed the sigma_1
arithmetical truth gives the ontology, and the arithmetical truth
determined all machines behaviors and what they can know about that,
or not. As explained, the laws of physics is a part of it when seen
from the machines points of view.
accuse me of messing with the definition of God?!
God has been defined by the creator of everything, in a large sense of
"create". You not only mess the definition given, but you mess what I
said about it.
You can define God negatively, like the neoplatonist, and God is what
we ignore, the Unknown, but still true. G* minus G and its variants
put a non trivial structure on that, and physics is a part of it.
To believe in God is not much more than to have a clue how ignorant we
are, and then with Mechanist, how intrinsically ignorant we are, and
the mathematical structure of the ignorance annulus (G* \ G, X1* \
X1, Z1* \ Z1). Here the miracle is that S4GRZ1* = S4GRZ1. That
explain Brouwer, Dogen, even Prigogine's conception of time, which is
closer to Bergson than Einstein. We get both notion of time with
mechanism.
> 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.
You confuse greek mythology and Plato's theology and the neoplatonist
line. Plato's references to myth are related with parables to explain
notion to the people of its time.
But everybody agrees that God is a intelligent conscious PERSON,
Not at all. Einstein would have disagree, and many believers can
disagree with this, even among jews and christians and muslims. Just
read them, along the centuries. It is a fascinating forum, once you
grasp the unsolved problems.
What you say contradicts the definition that I gave, on which everyone
agree, in the sense that the definition is sound, even if not complete
for any particular religion, like the christians when adding the
postulate that it is a person.
Again, you defend the christian notion of God, but that is not the God
of comparative theology, in which the impersonal tao, also the creator
(in the large sense) of things.
Do you agree or not with the axiom:
God = whatever without which there would be nothing.
Starting from not much more, Plato intuits already the shadow of
machine's theology, the transcendental aspect of such a god, its
unameability, then Plotinus makes it NOT conscious, and not really a
person even if he get troubled by the notion of will. It is hinest
reasoning in front of the fundamental question, and mocking them is
like pretending you know the questions and the answers, which is just
arrogance unless you do know that (but then give a reference).
Einstein was as much bored by the clerics and the "fanatical atheists":
"I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding
ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from
it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the
same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from
the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight
of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They
are creatures who---in their grudge against the traditional "opium for
people"---cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature
does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards
of human moral and humans aims.
(See the book by Jammer on "Einstein and Religion", page 97).
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.
In science we don't make vocabulary discussion. We accept the semi-
axiomatic definition of the one who talk about his subject. Call it
glass-of-beer if your prefer, that would change nothing, but it would
be rather unpedagogical with the risk of more mystification in a field
which suffers from this chronically since 1500 years nearby.
Read Aldous Huxley to understand that there is something common, non
trivial, in all religions, including the mathematical theology of the
universal machine which know that she is universal.
> 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.
Only bigot christian and bigot non-agnostic atheists believe this
confirming for the 56 times that you defend the christian theology.
I think everybody has understood this now. No need to insist (nor to
deny).
You defend with all your force the theology of the fundamentalist
christians.
I am agnostic on this and use only the definition that God is the
creator or origin, or the thing/person/reason from which or through
which all the remaining realities emanate. Theology is a much older
endeavor than what the christian did. Before the romanisation of
christianism, half the christians were neoplatonist, and took Jesus'
talk as parable for the people, but still knew that the theological
science was the greek science.
And I have a hunch that somewhat less than 99.9% would agree that
arithmetic is God, not even Robinson arithmetic.
Indeed, there are not, and I have never said anything like that.
You don't read the posts, nor my papers where all this is explained in
all details. You keep attributing me, in all your post, proposition
that I have never asserted.
You confuse the machine (PA, ...) and god the set of all
arithmetical truth (in some frame and context, no need to intepret
literally anything about what follows from the (theological) belief we
can survive reincarnated or reimplemented with an artificial brain.
>> as I've said over and over and over and over, matter or
may Not be primary but it is certainly needed for intelligence.
> That is ambiguous at the extreme.
Which word didn't you understand?
"needed"
A needs B can mean either A -> B, or B -> A. In natural language, we
use often "need" for both, I have written a paper (in french) showing
that health politics has exploited this confusion, like also in all
known genocide on this planet. Our associative cortex does not insist
on that nuance, which makes sense only for some long run, not handled
by the evolution "algorithm".
>> 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?
If matter is primary, computationalism is false, and you would not
survive at all if the unknown doctor offer you a digital brain.
If computationalism is true, you survive no matter what, but by using
your code without protection, you augment the risk that your code go
into bad hands in the normal worlds ((that is, with high probability).
> 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;
No, that is the point where you contradict all textbook in theoretical
computer science.
Matter (primary or not) is not part of the definition, neither of the
Turing machine, nor for its implementation, nor for computations, etc.
Arithmetic or combinators, or any sigma_1 complete structure is enough
to implement a computation. (it is just not a physical implementation).
Here you confuse all people on this. But that error is frequent with
non experts in logic.
the matter may or may not be primary but it's got to be there.
Not at all. Matter appears only when we introduce the first person
notion, as a logical consequence, and it that sense it will be needed
for consciousness and intelligence, but not for doing computation for
which any universal numbers will do.
So, if you want, matter got to be there ... from the machine's view.
But it does not need to be postulate in the base theory (which is RA).
And please: RA is not God! It is the base theory. I could have taken
combinators and the Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) axioms only.
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?
Science is modesty attitude when studying a domain. It is not
something which has a domain per se. It does not per se make any
ontological commitments, but hypotheses only. It uses the Aristotelian
hypothesis by default, except in the coffee room, where you can
realize that most take Aristotle for granted, and get shocked with the
idea that Aristotle ontological commitment can be doubted. And if you
can doubt Aristotle's ontology, Plato is back, because if you have not
Aristotle, you have Plato, at least if you agree that reality is
either WYSIWYG or not WYSIWYG.
Since we have separated science with theology, many believe that
science is physics, and I guess that is what you are doing here,
because to say that science has shown that the debate Aristotle/Plato
is irrelevant is an example of that confusion, like if science has
solve the problem in theology. Sorry but that it is not the case,
research in theology has been forbidden since 1500 years.
It is sad that the (strong, non-agnostic) atheists help so much the
clerics by participating in the mocking of the idea to come back to
the scientific attitude in that domain. They betray that there are
still christians. Like Einstein says above, they are still slave of
the cleric brainwashing. Open minded agnostic atheists are *happy*
with the idea of doing theology with rigor: they know that only this
can really piss-of the fundamentalist bigots.
> The current paradigm is Aristotelian.
Most modern scientists know just as much about Aristotle as the
need to. Nothing.
Which makes them not even conscious that they believe in the main part
of Aristotle theology: its second God: (Primary) Matter. But that is
the consequence of 1500 years of brainwhashing and the use of terror
in the field instead of the reasoning like the greeks, chinese,
indian, ... and even christians and jewish when they are educated. But
even jews and muslims eventually adopted the Aristotelian theory,
historically.
To be sure, having discussed with many jews scholars on this question,
it looks like many don't trust Maimonides as much as I thought, and I
am discovering now that the jewish researchers in theology are more
Platonists than I thought. Many christians researchers do too, but
they get excommunicated if they made this too much clear. Theology is
still in the end of "authority" which prevent open minded free exam.
Many strong atheists pretend to defend free-thinking and free-exam,
but only if you don't put doubt on the primary matter dogma, as I have
experienced very strongly, to say the least.
You illustrate this in all your posts. Thank you for that, my enemies
are not that kind, and have never accepted any dialog.
> 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.
Its interest in theology is a lifelong interest. He was not insane
when doing its ontological proof. He just became paranoïd, at the very
end.
Anyway, to confuse theology with christian theology is enough to prove
my point. You do that just to mock theology, and to hide the fact that
it is a domain of inquiry where we can do science like in any other
domain. Only strong atheists and fundamentalist christians act in this
way.
You remind me the free-masons. I know them very well as I was one of
them (without any choice in the matter), but when I saw that they
practice the same clerical rite than christians, I quit them. Not only
hey believe in the theology of the christian (matter, even god
actually) but they are clerical and use even more sectarian method
than the usual village priester.
> 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.
"needed" in which sense? What is your theory. Clarify this point
please.
> If you agree that matter might not be primary,
My hunch is matter is primary but I could be wrong.
Good, it means you doubt between Plato's conception of reality and
Aristotle's conception of reality.
> then the point you made is refuted at the start.
I don't see why.
See the explanation above.
> 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.
No problem, I made clear more than once that we agree on his, up to
the ambiguity in "needed", which seem to crops here and there. If by
"needed" you don't mean "need to be postulated in the base ontological
theory", then there is no problem.
But then you can no more invoke matter to say that consciousness or
intelligent behavior cannot arise from the arithmetical reality, or
you need another argumentation.
And if Darwin was right and Evolution produced me then intelligent
behavior and consciousness must be linked.
No problem with this. With my large semi-axiomatic definition of
intelligence and consciousness, (keeping in mind, though, my
distinction between intelligence and competence), to distinguish at
this stage intelligence and consciousness would be a 1004 fallacy.
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.
