> On 6 Jul 2019, at 15:48, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:19 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[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)
OK. That is my point. > 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. ? No, saying that you survive a digital substitution at some level, is the hypothesis/axiom of Mechanism, like saying that 0 is different from s(x) for any x is an hypothesis/axiom of elementary arithmetic. > > 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. That is what I usually called “behaviourist” mechanism. It is conceivable that the copy of me acts exactly like me, but that we die in the transplant process. I guess you and le doubt this very much, but when doing science, we have to take account those nuances into account, for being rigorous. > > > 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. I would have said the contrary. To which recent studies are you thinking. It seems to the more we study the glial cells, the more they look as sort of protoneurons, communicating a lot with each others, yet without axones. But I am agnostic on this issue, and it is a good ida to play it safe. > > > 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. Plato was just the guy having a scientific attitude (doubt, skepticism) toward the popular and religious/metaphysical belief that there is a physical universe (in its primary or irreductible sense made precise later by Aristotle who came back to that idea). Here, coming back to Plato means to come back to the scientific attitude in the ontological domain. And Aristotle is the guy who came back to that idea. Today, with mechanism, Plato is not an option, but is obligatory, with some ultra-weak version of Occam razor, as Better does no more make any sense that we could relate to an experience. > > > 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. In science, we redefined all terms used in the mundane language. > > > [blah blah] that is in accordance with classical greek theology. > > Then it is almost certainly wrong. On this matter, you can’t have both Plato and Aristotle wrong, as they are the classical negation of each other. We follow Aristotle since 1500 years, but today, we have good reason to think that Aristotle is wrong (coming not just from mechanism, but also from physics). You do seem to take the existence of a primary physical universe for granted, when it can only be a metaphysical assumption. With mechanism, it is very simple: except for consciousness here and now, all the rest are assumptions with variate degree of plausibility. > > > 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? Good question. Once you agree that we cannot prove Mechanism, we agree. That was the point where you seemed to disagree. > > >> 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. You loss me here. > > > >> 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. No. It is a key chapter in mathematical logic, although they use the word “theories” where I use machines, but the concept is equivalent. Of course if you know how to build a Turing machine from Turing’s theory, you can build a Löbian machine with the same ease. Example of Löbian machines abounds, like all consistent effective extension of Peano arithmetic, but actually it is even more general than that. I will say more on this in the glossary. Of course, I use the purely mathematical notion of machine, like Turing an all computer scientist. > > > 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. That is not Aristotle theology. Aristotle theology is the idea that there are irreductible substance in nature, which we have to assume the existence (that their existence is not derivable, or not illusory nor purely phenomenological). Platonism begins by doubting this, and being open that such substance might not be the fundamental things. That augure the use of mathematics in physics, and the growing importance of mathematics. > > > > 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, No problem with this. Of course material will be primary of not according to the truth of falsity of physicalism. > 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 You seem to assume a physical worlds “really ontological”, but that is what is impossible once you understand step 3 and the sequel. > 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. A test book is not a program. Nobody here has ever claim that a book think. Indeed, I take some time to explain that there is a very important difference between a computation and a description of computation, like in the movie-graph discussion. You attribute implicit proposition which have never been asserted. That is not fair game. > > >> 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. Assuming mechanism, but the point is that we cannot prove it. We might be able to know it, but still unable to prove it. That is not astonishing, in cognitive science most agree that everybody knows that he is conscious, but nobody can prove it. The fact hat there are truth that we can’t prove, or rationally justify (of course in some strong sense) justify the use of the term “theology” in the sense of Plato (the science of the truth as possibly recoverable by a machine without a proof). > > >> 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?) A lazy dreamer (grin). > but in practice it has proven itself to be the longest lived catastrophic > boondoggle in the history of the 20th century. That is debatable. The problem of communism is that it has been imposed, and presented as opposed to democracy, but as an idea of the left, it could still be defensible. The problem of the communist regime was that they were dictatorship, not that they were communist, unless you take communism in the string stalinian, antidemocratic, sense of course. Not that I want defend communism, but I will still be open to the idea, if it is not imposed by force. > 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. Of course, we can buy an atomic bomb, or a computer, without ever asking oneself how that works. But then why intervene in a discussion where we try theories to explains facts, and not use theories for this or that goal. > > >> 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? Because if my mind operate at the level of gluons, (which I agree is newly plausible), it might be that the replacement is made following the instructions present in my gluons, and replacing them without going through the usual natural process would not work. What you give is just an argument to defend the idea that our level of substitution is above the gluons, but if it isn’t, your argument would not go through. You beg the issue. > > > 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.” That is weak atheism, or agnostic atheism. But then why do you seem to believe in a privately material world? What is that Matter that you invoke all the time to say that we need it to compute 2+2=4, when, once we assume mechanism, we can prove the existence of infinitely many John Clark computing 2+2 without using any matter, despite claiming the century (though). Primitive Matter is not a personal god, but is still a Platonic god, i.e. an extremely unproven and unexperienced metaphysical hypothesis. > > >> 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. You are the one who insist to use God in the christian sense. Then you play the “Oh my!” When we come back to the vocabulary used by those who have done science. You keep defending christianity’s conception of both God and Matter. You say, my religion is the off channel, but you invoke your metaphysical assumption all the times, just to be negative, as I have no other clues why you behave like that. You seem annoy that we agree that Mechanism is not provable, and seem to try to distract, instead of moving forward in the reasoning. >> >>>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. There is nothing radicals in udneersatnding that the mind-body problem is not solved, and that the physical universe might be a wrong idea. Science is born from that questioning by Plato. > > > 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. You deny, like those who at least did this only under torture, one millenium of scientific theology, and this to oppose your christian conception of matter to others, like if that should be taken for granted. It looks like brunospeak (and ad hominem term, BTW) means doubting about the christian (materialism) theology. > > > 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, Ah, you see you are a believer in Matter. Sorry, but you stop doing science, and do religion in the pejorative sense. > but we do NOT know for certain a fundamental reality exists, But we posit it when we search it. And honestly, you do that also when you posit the great amorphous blob’s ontological existence. Without positing a fundamental reality, there is just no fundamental research. The current paradigm is that the fundamental reality his physical, and it seems you assume this, but of course, that is debatable, and in particular, it is shown incompatible with mechanism. > it could be like a infinite Matryoshka doll with one layer of reality always > inside another layer. With mechanism, elementary arithmetic can be chosen for the fundamental ontological reality. That explains both consciousness and matter, with enough details so that we can test it with netuare, and that has been done as we have already derived the propositional physics, and indeed it obeys to a quantum logic, which means that nature confirms computationalism (confirming is not proving, once again, of course). > > > The mathematical definition of the theology > > That just may be the most ridiculous sentence I have ever read in my life. Probably because you admit never having read Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Damascius, Why would math apply to the physical reality, and not to biology, psychology and theology? That is very weird, because the mechanist assumption invites to use computer science (a branch of mathematics) to all question that a machine can ask to itself. Is it not obvious that with mechanism the mathematical result on machine’s impossibilities apply to us? Theology is related to those many impossibilities. >> >>>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? Yes, I don’t know. > > > 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. If it does not work, and impose it to somebody, you are killing that somebody. The moral dimension is related to “thou shall not kill”. > > >> 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. My laptop is a Turing Machine, and without some definition of “John Clark” it would not been able to send you this mail. Computer science and mathematical logic have a big chapters on definition and definability. In the theoretical approach it is important to know that there are object which exist despite being non definable, like some object exists without any proof showing so. > > >> 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 your religion, again and again. Sorry, as a scientist, the least I can say is that I am agnostic on such matter, and it is easy to understand that the concept does not make sense once you assume Digital Mechanism, because a Digital entity cannot be sure if it is run in arithmetic or in something else. > > > 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. No, It is my definition of atheist: the believer in Matter. It is a subbranch of post 1248-Islam and post 529- Christianity. Yes, they believe in a god, but with the definition of the greek, everyone is, which helps to circumvent the discussion on the nature of God. > > >> 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, Si we agree again. It is not brunospeak though. You would have mocked cantor, like many did, because he called God the class of all sets, and discussed this with bishops for 20 years, showing that christians understand without problem that something as great as the class of all sets plays a role similar to God in set theory, with the risk of the same theological trap making the whole thing inconsistent. > > > I am agnostic in theology. > > You are?! You think grey amorphous blobs of indeterminate size might not > exist? I certainly things that such things do not exist ontologically once we assume Digital Mechanism. Such blob might still exist phenomenological, like a persistent hallucination. But I don’t know if mechanism is true, so such blob might eixist, and my only pont is that we can test this, and the test confirms more mechanism (in which case there is no such blob) than materialism (which accept some such blob). Or, you could define such a blob by some very big natural number, as the notion of blob has not been made enough precise to really argue on. > I guess I'm more religious than you, at least in Brunospeak. Of course you are more religious. You believe in in grey amorphous Blob of indeminate size. What you need to do is to explain how such a blob can interfere with the consciousness of the Turing machine emulated in arithmetic. Maybe wait for the glossary, where I will explain the term “emulation”. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ugbfWST%2B1GzFBNV55b4MLsgWhOuod%3DiMtTPZzMPP5Vw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ugbfWST%2B1GzFBNV55b4MLsgWhOuod%3DiMtTPZzMPP5Vw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/7501FD69-BF48-4F13-A14C-4C8B50E2B0CA%40ulb.ac.be.
