On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > *for consciousness, which needs a relation between a brain, and truth.* > Hallucinations exist. > > *That needed truth needs also to be independent of the brain.* > Hallucinations are not independent of the brain. > *Information processing can “differentiate” consciousness, it cannot > create it per se. * > No idea what that means. >>As for experience, anything with a memory has that, even the 1946 ENIAC >> computer had memory. > > > *>Not in the first person sense.* > How the hell do you know what anybody or anything's first person experience is other than your own? > *> Of course I have evidence that “we” are conscious. I have no proof, but > plenty of evidences. * > You have plenty of evidence that we are intelligent but there is exactly zero evidence "we" are conscious. > *your mail here is an evidence (not a proof oc course) that YOU are > conscious.* > My mail is evidence of my intelligence (or some might say lack of it) but it says precisely nothing about my consciousness, unless of course you use the axiom that intelligence implies consciousness. And every human being this side of a looney bin makes use of that axion every minute of every day of their waking lives since they were about 2; the only exception is when some argue on the internet that computers are only "pseudo intelligent" because even though they can outsmart us they are not conscious. Evidently they think wet and squishy can be conscious but dry and hard can't. > *> Alan Turing used his material brain, yes, but that has nothing to do > with the fact that he gave a definition of computation* [...] > Definitions be damned! Alan Turing did not become famous because he made a definition, anybody can do that. Alan Turing became famous by showing how the laws of physics can produce arithmetic, and not even all the laws are required, just the laws of classical mechanics are sufficient. And meanwhile nobody has shown how arithmetic could produce the laws of physics or even just mechanics. *> you confuse* [...] Enough with the "you confuse" crap. I'm not the one befuddled by personal pronouns. > > *mathematical models and realities are quite different from the > language used to describe them.* > That is equivalent to saying "The English word "cat" is quite different from the English word "cat" ". >>step 3 was *DUMB*. > > > *>Insulting is not a valid way to argue.* > It's not bragging if it's true and it's not insulting if it's true either. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
