On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Peano Arithmetic (RA + the induction axioms) proves that all computations > exist. Proving an answer exists is not the same as proving you have the answer, or even proving that in theory an answer can be found. If it were otherwise Giuseppe Peano would have been Silicon Valley's first billionaire. > > You have to endow the universal Turing machine or number with magical > abilities for them to avoid arithmetical zombiness. > Yes, if that were not so , and assuming Darwin was right (he was) , then no conscious being would exist in the universe , and yet I know for a fact that at least one does. You're probably conscious too and for the same reason. I have a explanation of how and why Evolution produced intelligent behavior but I have no explanation why intelligent behavior produces consciousness except to say consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed , and if it's a brute fact that's all that can be said and all that needs to be said about it. > > When you say "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. ", > that is exactly what we mean by "Aristotelian Matter". > Who is "we"? I want nothing to do with Aristotle, he was a nitwit. >> >> Do you really >> >> doubt that >> >> electrons are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics >> >> ?! > > > > My opinion is private and of no interest. Jez, I'm not asking about your sex life I'm asking a legitimate question about the physics of electrons. Are you ashamed at what your answer would be? >> >> >> 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. >> > > > > Then prime numbers do not exist, > The very first program my brain, which is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, ever wrote instructed a computer, which is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, to print a list of prime numbers on a paper, which is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > You might not understand well what is a theory, or what are theoretical > assumptions. > Then show me a computation that doesn't use matter that obeys the laws of physics and I'll understand it better. And I'll contact INTEL about it too. > > Computationalism explains the appearance of blackboards, and of textbooks, > without assuming the existence of blackboard and textbooks > How would things be different if blackboard s and textbooks DID exist? What does "exist" even mean in your context? > > The physical has a mathematical reason. > If so I have great trouble understanding why changing the physical brain of a mathematician changes not only his mathematical reasoning but also his consciousness. I think there is more evidence the mathematical has a physical reason. 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.
