John Clark <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:19 AM Mark Buda <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [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.
