> On 14 Mar 2019, at 14:03, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com > <mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:40 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@ <>gmail.com > <http://gmail.com/>> wrote: > > > We may even have robots that can sit and talk with us about current events, > > know everything in Wikipedia, etc. How "creative" they will be is an open > > question. > > I don't think it's a open question at all. I can state without reservation > that regardless of how intelligent computers become they will never be > creative because the word "creative" now means whatever computers aren't good > at. Yet. And thus due to Moore's Law and improved programing the meaning of > the word constantly changes. What was creative yesterday isn't creative today. > > > On mathematics: Of course mathematics changes, because it is a type of > > language, and languages change. > > If mathematics is just a language (as I think it is) then it can not be used > to construct things, in particular it can't, by itself without the use of > matter, construct a Turing Machine as Bruno claims it can. English is also a > language but an English word has no meaning without an English speaker with a > physical brain to hear it. > > John K Clark > > > > There is some AI art that sells at galleries > > > https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2018/oct/26/call-that-art-can-a-computer-be-a-painter > > <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2018/oct/26/call-that-art-can-a-computer-be-a-painter> > > but that's about it I've seen. > > Turing machines in theoretical computing/math books are all fictional things, > of course.
“Of course”? > > All actual computers are made of matter. No doubt that this is true, but that is not an argument that such matter are not (stable) appearances. But as I try to explain here from times to times, the arithmetical reality explains where and why such stable appearances appears. If I can say. You just seem to be a believer in a Primary Matter, but I have never seen one evidence for it. Initially, “mathematician” were not believer in a mathematical reality, but a skeptic toward the idea that matter is the primitive reality we have to assume. But with mechanism, we don’t have to assume matter, it explains matter, and unlike physicalism, it explains how consciousness remains associated to the appearances of matter. You seem to beg the question by deciding that math objects are fiction and physics object is not. No problem, but then digital mechanism is false. But there are no evidences, it is just an old habit since the closure of Plato academy; Bruno > > (Technically the fictional ones are too: Printed ink glyphs on paper.) > > -pt > > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
