John Clark <> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:19 AM Mark Buda <> wrote:
>  > Information is only processed in minds, not in physical systems,
> A brain is a physical system. Mind is what the brain does. I think our
> fundamental disagreement is you think "Mark Buda" is a noun but I
> think you're a adjective, you're the way atoms behave when they're
> organized in a Markbudaian way.

I'm a verb.

>  > unless you can show that minds are physical systems.
> Before I can do that I need to know just what you mean by that term. A
> racing car is a physical system, what a racing car does is go fast. Is
> "fast" a physical system? It is certainly produced by one but whether
> it itself is a physical system is a matter of philosophical
> interpretation of no operational difference as far as I can see.

I mean by "physical system" what physicists mean when they talk about
physical systems. I don't understand why you would expect me to mean
something else.

>  > I believe minds are mathematical objects, as are physical systems,
> Turing did more than prove the Halting Problem has no solution, with
> his machine he also showed us exactly how the laws of physics could
> produce arithmetic. However nobody has shown how arithmetic could
> produce the laws of physics or even come close to doing so.

I don't understand what you mean by "producing arithmetic" here.
>  > and that minds are a particular kind of mathematical object.

> Then why is it that if I change the physical object that is your brain
> your mind changes and when you change your mind your brain changes?
> The function F(x)=x^2 is a mathematical object and it remains the same
> regardless of what I do to your brain, but your mind doesn't.

When I can explain that to you, I will.

>  > I strongly suspect that the particular kind of mathematical object that 
> minds are is called a lawless choice sequence.
> The lawless choice sequence was invented by the mathematician
> L.E.J. Brouwer and he was also the founder of intuitionism, a
> philosophy of mathematics that says mathematics is not fundamental is
> just the product of the human mind. I don't know that I'd go as far as
> Brouwer because I think ET of a AI or any mind would eventually come
> us with something similar to our mathematics, but only because
> mathematics is the best language to use when describing how the laws
> of physics work.

I'm aware of that, that's why I've been reading "Brouwer meets Husserl:
On the Phenomenology of Choice Sequences", by Mark van Atten. You might
find it interesting.
Mark Buda <>
I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to