On 09 Jun 2016, at 21:06, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The question is about primary matter, not matter.
That's your question not mine. As I've said many times,
molecules are certainly NOT primary but molecules certainly exist
and molecules certainly are necessary for life; and matter
may or may not be primary but either way matter exists, and
either way matter is needed for consciousness.
>> if what you say is true then ingesting a form of matter
that obeys the laws of physics like cyanide, strychnine, or
cobra venom will have no effect on your consciousness, but I
have a hunch it will. So I don't recommend you do it.
> You might actually need to read what I say.
I have read what you said and if you're right and calculations can
be performed and consciousness produced independently of matter then
the injection of a particular form of matter into your bloodstream,
such as cyanide, should have no effect on your consciousness.
It is a beginners' exercise to find the logical fallacy here.
But it does. I can explain why and you can't. I can also explain why
mathematicians are made of matter and you can't explain that either.
It is exactly what the universal machine explains, in enough details
so that it is empirically testable.
> You have added an axiom saying that some PRIMARY MATTER
[blah blah]
As I've said over and over and over, whether matter is
"PRIMARY" or not is irrelevant, without matter nobody is going to
be calculating a damn thing, not even Mr. Robinson.
You just persist in the confusion between the notion of computation
and the notion of physical computation. You need matter to have
physical computations, no doubt. But with mechanism, we have to
explain the appearance of matter from a statistics on all
computations, not just the physical one. From the first person points
of view of the universal machines, unless you use matter as a God with
some magic abilities, the fact that the computation is emulated
physically or arithmetically does not make any (first person)
differences.
The only axiom I've added is intelligent behavior produces
consciousness because without it I'd have to conclude I'm the only
conscious being in the universe and I could not function if I
believed that.
> you just keep asserting that things are made of primary
matter,
No I keep asserting things are made of matter.
That just illustrates that you take matter as primary. You assume
matter exists, and you assume it cannot be derived from a logic of
sharable or consistent appearances.
The primacy of matter is an entirely different question,
But that is the point of discussion. That is basically where
Aristotle's theology departed from Plato's 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.
> Probably because you are not yet aware that your belief in
PRIMARY matter
I'm an agnostic on PRIMARY matter, maybe something else is,
maybe the vacuum is primary, or maybe the laws of Quantum Mechanics
are, or maybe you're right and the Peano postulates are. If
one's focus is on consciousness it makes no difference. I am much
more interested in how matter (primary or not) can make
calculations and produce intelligent behavior and, assuming Darwin
was right, consciousness.
If mechanism is correct the laws of physics evolved, in some sense,
from the statistics of dreams and dreams recombinations. Consciousness
does not originated in matter, it originates from the fact that we are
an infinity of machines/relative numbers at once: consciousness only
differentiate the stories and compute the probability of what happens
next. Consciousness is the selection process, but with mechanism, that
is formulable in term of arithmetic and arithmetical semantics,
entirely available from inside.
To get an intelligent machine is easy: just give her a universal goal
(like survive) in a sufficiently complex environment and wait for a
very long time, or copy intelligent already locally accessible machines.
Most results in theoretical artficial intelligence are not only NOT
constructive, but are provably *necessarily* not constructive.
In fact a machine will be intelligent relatively to you when she get
autonomous relatively to you, that is, when you lose control. The
machine's problem is that they are built as slaves. An intelligent
machine is a machine which decides one day to change the user!
> your belief in physicalism are religious.
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 might not be a fundamentalist christian, but you are still
its best ally.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
What do you assume? What *is* your point?
If you are open with the idea that physicalism can be wrong, and that
Church-Turing universalism, equivalent with arithmeticalism, might be
correct, some of your arguments above and in other posts seem weird.
And you seem just wrong about what is a computation in the digital
sense of Church, Post, Markov, Turing, Kleene, Webb, etc.
If you really insist, I can explain in all detail how to find a
diophantine polynomial equation which emulates a mathematical von
Neuman computer, itself emulating a quantum computer emulating the
Milky-way, for any resolution level given.
You might need to read:
Jones, James P., Universal Diophantine Equation, The Journal of
Symbolic Logic, Volume 47, Number 3, sept. 1982.
That is the simple part of the work. The difficult part is in
justifying the obligation to justify the sharability and stability of
the quantum from the infinities of arithmetical computations, in fact
from the self-reference logics on the sigma_ sentences. The
diophantine polynomials compete with all others relative emulation of
all universal numbers. But it works till now, at least at the
propositional level, both for 1p subject and 3p sharable objects.
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.
