On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:19 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> *>>> Science guarantee that we cannot be certain that compuytaionalism is >>> true,* >> >> >> It makes no difference if it's true or not, > > > *> It makes the difference between surviving a clinical operation and > dying.* > You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you have survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness intact (and only you know if it has) then you can conclude that atoms do NOT have your name scratched on them so if you say yes to the doctor and your atoms are replaced AGAIN your should survive AGAIN with your consciousness remaining intact AGAIN. And all this is true regardless of if computationalism is true or not. By the way, computationalism says nothing about consciousness, it only says that intelagent behavior can be explained by computations; and when you look at the rapid increase in AI it is becoming more difficult to hold a view contrary to computationalism every day. > *Did you insist to copy the glial cells in your brain.* > To play it safe today I'd say yes, although as we learn more about glial cells that might prove unnecessary. > *we can also use the older motivation given by Plato and platonists. * > Bad idea. If a modern scientists takes almost anything Plato or any ancient Greek philosopher said seriously then there is an excellent chance he will end up making a fool of himself. > *I have defined faith by* [...] > I already know how the word "faith" is defined in the English Language and it's not worth my time to learn the definition in Brunospeak as you are the only one that uses that language. > > [blah blah] *that is in accordance with classical greek theology.* > Then it is almost certainly wrong. > > *Indeed Platonism encourage the* [blah blah] > Who gives a damn what Plato or Platonism encourages! >> And I have absolutely no need to prove it to say yes to the doctor or >> yes to being frozen. That's why I said yes. > > > *> No problem with this.* > So we agree that I can't prove it and it would in no way effect my decision to say yes to the doctor or yes to being frozen even if I could. So what are we arguing about? > >> When I Google "Löbian machine" nothing comes up except stuff written >> by you. Even Löb didn't know what a Löbian machine was. > > > *> Well then read the stuff I have written, and ask if you don’t > understand. I have given many different definitions,* I define "magic carpet" as a rug that can fly. Like you I give no hint as to how to build such a thing but unlike you and your "Löbian machine" at least from my description you can recognize a magic carpet for what it is if you happen to see one. But neither you or I or Löb has any way of telling if something is a "Löbian machine" or not. Which means the "Löbian machine" idea can not help anyone understand anything. > >> Turing told us EXACTLY how to make a Turing Machine, but neither Löb >> or you or anybody else told us even approximately how to make a Löbian >> machine. > > *> Now you know. * > *No I do not know!!* Turing explained in complete detail exactly how to build one of his machines, but neither you or anybody else has ever provided a hint as to how to make one of these things, you don't even tell us how we can recognize a Löbian machine if we see one as you don't say what the machine looks like or what it can do or but only what it "knows". In contrast Turing told us that not all machines are Turing Machines and taught us how to tell the difference. So it's not surprising that, at least according to Google, nobody but you believes the Löbian machine concept to be useful and uses it. *> But you are the one who seems to take Aristotelian theology for granted.* > Well, I certainly do not take "Aristotelian theology" for granted in the English language meaning of that phrase, for example I don't think everything is made of just 4 elements, earth, air, fire, and water. But perhaps I do take "Aristotelian theology" for granted in Brunospeak I really don't know. And to be honest I really don't care. * > Aristotelian is the belief in Matter, and in the irreducibility of > matter from anything no material.* > I would say "material" is anything that obeys the laws of physics, I don't know what else the word could mean. So if someday somebody finds that everything that we consider material today can be reduced to superstrings or loops of quantum gravity or whatever then that "whatever" must be material and obey a newly discovered law of physics. I would also say that "somebody" is certain to win a Nobel Prize. > > *You are the one who claim sometimes to refute what I say by invoking > your assumption that there is a PRIMARY physical reality,* > I claim that nobody in the history of the world has been able to calculate 2+2 without using matter that obeys the laws of physics and I further claim that even matter can't make a calculation unless it is organized in the ways Turing described and a mathematical textbook, even a very good one, is not one of those ways, that's why nobody replaces circuit boards with textbooks in their computers. >> It makes no difference even if you make the looney assumption that physical >> reality is bogus. Bogus atoms were replaced in your bogus brain from >> last year, and if you say yes to the doctor then bogus atoms will be >> replaced in your bogus brain again. If the first bogus thing doesn't make >> you uncomfortable then the second bogus thing shouldn't either because it's >> the exact same bogus thing. > > > *> That is the very argument to say that we have to take into account even > the atoms simulated in arithmetic with the right conditions to make you > conscious. As the arithmetical reality implement/emulate all computations, > that becomes unavoidable. You make my point!* > What on earth are you talking about?! The atoms that made up you last year have been replaced with new atoms and yet you are still conscious (or at least I am) therefore there is no need to take every atom into account. >> The world is full of disastrous boondoggles that worked in theory so I'd >> much rather have a problem in theory than a problem in practice, but in >> this case there is no problem with either. > > *> Can’t comment, because I am not sure which problem you are alluding to. * > I'll give an example, communism works in theory (who could be against a workers paradise?) but in practice it has proven itself to be the longest lived catastrophic boondoggle in the history of the 20th century. So as long as something works in practice, and even you seem to admit that saying yes to the doctor does, then I don't care much if it works according to some theory or not. >> If you say yes to the doctor and your atoms are replaced then the >> consequences, assuming there are some, will be the same as the consequences >> you already experienced from being replaced over the last year. > > > *> Counter-example: my memories could be at the level of quart and > gluons. * > The quarks and gluons that made up your brain last year have all been replaced, if that didn't erase your memories (and you seem to remember me) then why would replacing them again be a problem? *>* *Only atheists asks us to use the term used by radical christians. It > is weird.* [ ...] *you act like a priest defending the dogmatic > definition in the field.* [...] * You keep defending Aristotle religion > *[...] > *Aristotelian = Metaphysical materialism. It is assumed by the current > majority religion in the world today, including atheism.* > Long ago a very wise philosopher, I don't know if he was Greek or not, said it much better than I could: "*Atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel.*" >> I've found that one good indicator that somebody is talking moonshine is >> if they insist on redefining common words (like theology and God) in >> radical new ways and love to dream up new homemade acronyms. And nobody >> does that more than you. > > > *> In science we change all definitions and theories all the times. * > Yes but today Mathematics and English are the most important languages in science and you are not Mr. Science so you can not unilaterally decree how English is spoken. It's OK to have words mean anything you want in your own personal language because science doesn't use Brunospeak nor does anybody except for you. But I can only think of two reasons why somebody would even want to give common words radical new definitions and invent lots of homemade acronyms, to make their ideas seem more profound than they really are or to cover up the fact that they contain gaping logical holes. > > *>>>It seems you have a problem with the word theology,* >> >> >> Wow, you are very perceptive! Yes, I do have a problem with that word >> because serious people don't use it when discussing serious problems. > > > *> I guess by “serious” you mean “physical”.* > No, If I meant physical I would have said physical. Serious people know there is a difference between finding something new about how the world works and dreaming up a radical new definition for a common word to obscure the vapidness of an idea. > I understand why you dislike theology when done with the scientific > method. > Theology done with the scientific method is like sexual intercourse done with the method of abstinence. If it's done with the scientific method then it's not theology at least in the English language meaning of the word, I'm not sure about Brunospeak. > *> God by definition, is the fundamental reality what we search.* > Wow that Brunospeak definition is even worse! At least if we define "God" as a grey amorphous blob of indeterminate size that need not be intelagent or conscious then we know for certain that God exists, but we do NOT know for certain a fundamental reality exists, it could be like a infinite Matryoshka doll with one layer of reality always inside another layer. > *The mathematical definition of the theology* > That just may be the most ridiculous sentence I have ever read in my life. > *>>>I understand that the guy who has survived a first experience of >>> teleportation or artificial brain transplant, or feel that way, will be >>> convinced that Mechanism is true. The point is that even for him, it is not >>> a proof.* >> >> >>Oh for Gods sake! You keep saying that and I keep saying yes yes I >> know. > > > >*Excellent!* > Thank you, I thought so too. > And I also keep saying it doesn't matter a gnat's ass if there is a proof >> or not, what matters is if it's true or not. > > > *>Because you are a practionners,* > I've never seen that word before but if you say so. > *> and I congratulate you for this.* > Thanks again. >> So there is no problem in saying yes to the doctor's practical question >> or saying yes to the practice of being frozen. > > > *> Absolutely no problem. * > I don't get it, to me that is the bottom line so if we agree on that and we agree there is no proof then what are we arguing about? *> There would be a problem only if you impose that practice to some > adults. For your little kids, I guess the simplest and most fair solution > is to let the parent decide. I have no certainty here.* > Being frozen might or might not work but it will certainly not make anybody deader, so I don't see how it could have a moral dimension at all. >> Machines have no use for definitions > > > *> That is debatable.* > It is?! I sure wouldn't want to debate the contrary position because the engine in your car doesn't know or care about your definitions but will just keep chugging along until it stops for reasons of its own, and the same is true of a Turing Machine. >> and all the definitions in the world can't figure out what 2+2 is. > > > > *Words cannot, nor number, but, amazingly enough, Words plus some > simple operation on the words* [...] > Without matter that obeys the laws of physics you can't perform *ANY *operation on words, simple or otherwise. *> That is what I call the Aristotelian postulate. God is Matter.* Only somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but is still in love with the English word G-O-D and for some reason doesn't want to call himself an atheist would use a definition that dumb. > >> A much better definition of the English word "God" would be "a grey >> amorphous blob of indeterminate size that need not be intelligent or >> conscious"; that way no logical person could ever call themself an atheist >> or even an agnostic, assuming of course you don't also change the >> definition of atheist and agnostic. > > > *> You believe in a grey amorphous blob of indeterminate size?* > If we use the Brunospeak definition of the word then I am a devout believer in God. I admit it, I think grey amorphous blobs of indeterminate size DO exist, *> I am agnostic in theology. * > You are?! You think grey amorphous blobs of indeterminate size might not exist? I guess I'm more religious than you, at least in Brunospeak. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ugbfWST%2B1GzFBNV55b4MLsgWhOuod%3DiMtTPZzMPP5Vw%40mail.gmail.com.
