On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> All the papers that I have seen written by you, or by anybody else, are >> made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, please point me to some that >> aren't but don't use matter to do so. > > > > > But the' existence of papers is not part of the hypothesis for developing > the theory. > All the theories and all the hypotheses that have ever existed were developed by brains made of matter that obey the laws of physics, and the way they were communicated to other brains also involved matter that obey the laws of physics. There are no exceptions. None. > > > The point is that IF electron are made of primary matter, then > computationalism is false. > That is ridiculous. The chain of "what is this made of?" questions either comes to an end or it does not, and either way computationalism is true. > > But "primary matter" is a notion in theology, never used in physics, and > to invoke it to refute an argument is the same as saying that the theory of > evolution is false because it failed to explain how God created the humans. > > We call that "begging the question". > C omputationalism can explain how intelligent behavior works and can do it in a way that can't be faked, by reproducing it in the lab. And Evolution can show that intelligent behavior and consciousness are inextricably linked. How on earth is that begging the question? > > > If you agree that there is no Aristotelian matter > I do agree there is no Aristotelian matter and always have, in fact I can't off the top of my head think of any physical notion of Aristotle's that I agree with, and that's why I call Aristotle a nitwit. > > > I have no need to argue more. > Good. I'm sick to death with idiot ancient Greeks! > > > Then the question is: where does the appearance of aristotelian matter > comes from. > It comes from nowhere because matter does not even appear to be aristotelian , nothing in physics is aristotelian because Aristotle was a nitwit. > >> >>> >> >>> Show me an example of material complexity >>> but don't use any material (and that includes electrons) when you do >>> so. >>> >> >> > >> >> >> The atmoic physical proposition is given by the set of true sigma_1 >> arithmetical sentences p (i.e. having the shape: ExP(x) with P decidable) >> structured by the logic of Gödel's beweisbar predicate (B) in the following >> variant: Bp & ~B~(p), or Bp & p, or Bp & ~B~p & p. >> > > >> >> No that just won't do, > > > >> Proof? > > Proof of what? Do you really doubt that electrons are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics ?! > >> >>> > > >>> non material computations don't exist. >> >> >> > >> >> >> In which theory? >> > > >> > In no theory, in something far more important, in observation. > > > > How can you observe that computations do not exist in arithmetic. > You can observe interactions using your physical eyes and think about them using your physical brain. But you can't observe , even in theory, computations that exist in arithmetic but not in physics; and that is just another way of saying that such computations don't exist. > > > Something which is refuted in all textbook, also. > Textbooks made of matter that obey the laws of physics. 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.
