On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> The >> >> primary cause >> may be attached to the word "God", but we both know that is not the >> only attachment, so is "a being who can think". >> > > > > That is exactly what the greeks put in question. > I don't give a damn about the idiot ancient Greeks! You believe something called "God" exists so I'm asking you one simple question that has a simple yes or no answer, do you think I'm smarter than God? If the answer is yes then I don't see why anybody should care if God exists or not. If the answer is no then we can stop playing silly word games. > > > the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is > also not an obvious one. > Well I can think, if the set of true arithmetical sentence s can not then I can bring something to the table it can not, and that can only be matter that obeys the laws of physics. Also, it's not valid to talk about a set if you have no way of constructing that set, and you have no way of constructing a set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones; much less do so without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> >> To hell with the ancient Greeks! > > > > > Which greeks. > Just the ones that are ancient. >> >> >> *To hell with the ancient Greeks! * > > > > > I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much > I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists who ever lived. Full stop. > > > that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato. > Bruno, I hate to break it to you but Plato didn't even know where the sun to went at night. This is the 21st century and we're on a list that is supposed to discussing cutting edge developments in science and mathematics, so why are we still talking about a bozo like Plato? > > I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian, > Do you think they are any less silly? I can find little evidence of that. > > The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in physics. > I know, and that's why the notion of computation can not by itself perform any computations. In fact even a notion can not be a notion without something to have the notion, something like a brain. And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > It is done in all textbooks on computability theory, > Show me one textbook on computability theory that can compute 2+2 and I'll concede the argument. But I have found that all books are pretty dumb unless there is something with a brain to read them. And I have yet to run across a brain that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this, > If all mathematicians believe books can compute then all mathematicians are insane. > > > and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge. > If most physicists believe books can compute then most physicists are insane. >> >> I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. > > > > > But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve the easy > problem. > OK, consciousness is the way data feels when it's being processed. Problem solved. Now it's your turn, tell me how to make an AI in your next post. That's going to be a very long post! 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.
