On Tue, May 3, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> If you don't want to play word games then DON'T ASK ME TO DEFINE "SENSES"! > > > > > But "sense" is a contentious word. It has been the object of entire > thread. It's not just you but I have found that whenever I back somebody into a corner they demand a definition, and if I'm foolish enough to comply I can only do so with words, and then of course they demand a further definition of at least one of those words. And round and round we go. And sense is not the object of this thread and I should know because I started it. The object is memory and intelligent behavior although you keep talking about consciousness, a soft subject because unlike intelligence there is no way to prove a consciousness theory wrong. > > > If you are serious with the definition you gave > In general I'm far FAR more serious about examples than definitions, a child does not learn how the world works through definitions but through examples, and a AI would do the same. > > Robinson Arithmetic is Turing universal, > Mr. Robinson was made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, and so was Mr. Turing, and so were all the books you read to learn about what they wrote. And you are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics too. > >>> >>> >>> this does not mean that primary matter is needed on that process. >> >> > >> >> >> Prove it. > > > > > See most of my paper. > My? Are you made of matter that obeys the laws of physics? Is paper made out of pure numbers or out of fibers of cellulose pulp ? > >> >> I don't ask that you do anything as grand as produce consciousness or >> intelligent behavior, just add 2 and 2 and provide an answer without using >> matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > > > As material being talking to a material being, I cannot do that. > Obviously you can't but if you're right there is no reason you couldn't. If everything is made of numbers then why are you "material" but the number 42 is not? You must have some property that the number 42 does not and I know what it is. > > > we make our hypotheses clear, you can see that number theory does not rely > on any hypothesis of physics. > Yes, and that's why number theory can't add 2+2 without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> No universal machine can >> even exist without matter that obeys the laws of physics. >> > > > > because you define "exist" by "exist physically", but that begs the > question. > Alan Turing existed physically, Harry Potter did not. Is that begging the question too? > > the meaning of Turing or Church definition of universal machine or > universal lambda expression does not assume anything physical. > And that's why non physical Turing machines are static and do nothing unless the physical is thrown into the mix. > > > Again that confusion of level or domain. > Then relieve my confusion by explaining why JK Rowling didn't confer physicality onto Harry Potter. All of Rowling's books can be encoded as one large integer so what's the problem? Was it that she wasn't good enough at arithmetic or was it because matter has something that numbers alone can't produce? >> >> >> A non-material Turing machine can't calculate, or do anything else. > > > > > Can't calculate physically, but can calculate arithmetically or > mathematically. > Sounds like the same con game the Catholic Church pulled with transubstantiation, yes it passes all physical tests for being ordinary run of the mill bread and wine, but *REALLY* it's the body and blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Yes a non-material Turing machine looks like it's doing nothing, but *REALLY* it's calculating like mad. Just trust me, would I lie to you? > > >>> >> >>> What is the role of matter concerning the truth that 6 does not divide >>> 67? >> >> > >> >> >> You (a thing made of matter) are unable to take a pile of 67 rocks >> (things that are also made of matter) and form 6 equal but separate piles >> of rocks from them. That's how mathematicians figured out that 6 does not >> divide 67, although early mathematicians may have used physical fingers >> more often than physical rocks. > > > > That is a consequence, not a preamble to figure out that 67 is not > divisible by 6. > I would maintain that if there was nothing, that is to say if there were no physical thing, then neither 6 nor 67 nor any other number would exist because there would be nothing to count and nobody around to count or even to think about numbers. > > > You seem to beg the question by pointing directly on physical > implementation of mathematical notion, which does exist, but does not prove > that the mathematical notions are necessarily physical. > When the physical is removed mathematical notions *ALWAYS* become inert. What more more proof do you need? > > > We have defined the Helsinki guy by the series of person which remember > having been the guy in Helsinki. > Then what do we need those damn diaries for? > > So both the W and the M guys are admittedly the helsinki guy. > So the answer to the question "what city will you the Helsinki man see?" does not have a unique answer. > > > the point is that they could not have predicted, when in Helsinki, with > certainty the outcome > But they could have predicted that the question was stupid. 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.
