On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:\ > > Your opinion about Plato and Aristotle seems based on your not studying it > only. You seem to ignore the history of science. >
You seem to ignore the fact that the history of science did not stop in 400 BC; I'm pretty sure there have been some developments since that time. > > Arithmetical truth plays the role of God > Arithmetical truth is not a person, but God is a person, a fictitious person but a person nevertheless. Harry Potter is a fictitious person too and that's why Harry is not synonymous with arithmetical truth either. > > You confuse greek mythology and Plato's theology and the neoplatonist line. > One of us is confused that's for damn sure. > > > Plato's references to myth are related with parables to explain notion to > the people of its time. > But yet you believe that when Einstein talked about "God" it was different, you think he wasn't using a parable to explain something. > >> >> 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. > Do you really think a devote Jew Christian or Muslim would agree with Einstein when he said: *"I* * cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death"* Or: *"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility"* *Or:* *"it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."* *Or:* *"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." * *Or:* *"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."* *Or:* *"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.* *"* ** > Do you agree or not with the axiom: God = whatever without which there would be nothing. Not. If I did agree with that then whenever I talk to 99.9% of the people on this planet I'd have to invent a new word when I wanted to refer to a conscious intelligent *PERSON *who created the universe. >> >> 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. > Baloney. Two people can't discuss any subject if they can't even agree on what language to use; and if I and 99.9% of the people on the planet think a word means a conscious intelligent PERSON but you would prefer it to mean a vague grey blob then confusion is guaranteed. But of course, if your ideas are illogical then confusion is your ally when you communicate. > > > Call it glass-of-beer if your prefer, > I would greatly prefer to call it "a glass of beer" but I know you would never agree in a million years because you've fallen in love with the word "God" even though you've forgotten what the word means. > > that would change nothing Calling it a glass of beer would make things MUCH clearer because nobody would confuse a glass of beer with a person. But you would never agree to such a change because clarity of thought does not aid your side of the argument, and besides you love the noise your mouth makes when it makes a "God" sound too much. > > > this confirming for the 56 times that you defend the christian theology. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > You defend with all your force the theology of the fundamentalist > christians. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > You confuse the machine (PA, ...) > One of us is confused that's for damn sure. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> 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? >> >> > > > "needed" > In addition the integer 3 *needs* the integer 2 to produce the integer 5; and in every single instances ever recorded addition *needs* matter that obeys the laws of physics to perform a calculation. For more clarification look up "needed" in a grade school dictionary. > > A needs B can mean either A -> B, or B -> A. In natural language, we use > often "need" for both, > There is an asymmetry. Coca-Cola needs carbon dioxide but carbon dioxide does not need Coca-Cola . > > >>> >> >>> 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, > BULLSHIT. Maybe matter is primary and maybe it's secondary but whatever it is if you want to make a computation you're going to need matter. > > > and you would not survive at all if the unknown doctor offer you a digital > brain. > Why? Regardless of whether they're primary or not one thing we know for sure is that the Hydrogen atoms in my body do *NOT* have my name scratched on them. > > If computationalism is true, you survive no matter what, > You will survive if somewhere in the universe there is a chunk of matter that is organized in such as way that it behaves in a Brunomarchalian way, and if there isn't then you won't; and it makes no difference if that matter is primary or not. > > > but by using your code without protection, you augment the risk that your > code go into bad hands > If you're right then your code will definitely go into bad hands, and it will definitely go into good hands too. > >> >> 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. > No textbook in theoretical computer science can make one single calculation. That's why INTEL makes chips and not textbook in theoretical computer science. > > Matter (primary or not) is not part of the definition > A definition can not make one single calculation. That's why INTEL makes chips and not definitions. > > > any sigma_1 complete structure is enough to implement a computation. > Then INTEL is foolish to make chips when they should be making sigma_1 complete structures. You could make a fortune competing against such a foolish company. > > > (it is just not a physical implementation). > And Catholics say bread and wine is *really* the body and blood of Jesus Christ it's just not a physical implementation. And Santa Claus lives at the north pole and the only reason arctic expeditions haven't found him there is that Santa lacks a physical implementation. And if that isn't a load of colossal horseshit what is? And you still can't explain *WHY* it isn't a physical implementation! If matter that obeys the laws of physics isn't the missing ingredient then what is?? > > Here you confuse all people on this. > One of us is confused that's for damn sure. > > > 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. > OK, so the axioms Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) are God. But I'm not sure everybody in Jerusalem or Baghdad or Atlanta would agree. > > 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 > [...] > Plato intuits already the shadow of machine's theology, the transcendental > aspect of such a god, its unameability, then Plotinus makes it NOT > conscious, > Don't you ever get tired of blabbing about those ancient Greek imbeciles? > > > research in theology has been forbidden since 1500 years. > Forget 1500 years, there has NEVER been any research in theology because theology has no field of study. > 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. Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > Anyway, to confuse theology with christian theology > One of us is confused that's for damn sure. > > Only strong atheists and fundamentalist christians act in this way. > Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. >> >> >> I see no reason to doubt that matter is needed for intelligence. > > > > > "needed" in which sense? > In which sense do you mean " which sense "? > > > What is your theory. > After 4 or 5 hundred posts the man asks "what is your theory?"! > > > Clarify this point please. > I'll be glad to as soon as you c larify the meaning of "this". >> >> >> 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. > But I don't doubt that both Plato and Aristotle were imbeciles. >> >> And if Darwin was right and Evolution produced me then >> >> intelligent behavior and consciousness must be linked. > > > > > No problem with this. Then I'm right and you're wrong. > > > 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. > I have no idea what your silly homemade jargon " 1004 fallacy " means and I don't what to know because whatever it means it's got to be dumb. It's easy to distinguish between intelligence and non-intelligence but it's impossible to directly distinguish between consciousness and non- consciousness in anybody but oneself. 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.
