On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:22 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.* > No, I wish it were but that is not your point, if it were you wouldn't have made the following silly remark. *> 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.* > For god's sake! You don't need mathematical notation to figure out if you are conscious or not or to figure out that if you've already survived one brain transplant, and you have, then there is no reason to think you won't survive another one. > > I*t is conceivable that the copy of me acts exactly like me, but that > we die in the transplant process.* > It is conceivable but the only one that knows if that happened during your last brain transplant, the one that replaced the atoms you had last year with new ones, is you. If it didn't happen then there is no reason to think it will happen in your next brain transplant. > *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).* > Neither Plato or Aristotle ever performed a single exparament in their life. Many of their ideas, like heavy objects fall more quickly than light ones or that men have more teeth than woman could have been disproved with a simple exparament that would have taken less than 2 minutes to perform, but they never bothered. They thought they could figure out how the world worked just by sitting and thinking. That is the very opposite of the scientific attitude. >> 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.* > But you are not Mr. Science and you are not Mr. English so you can't expect to unilaterally change the meaning of important words and still effectively communicate. > >>> [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,* > That is incorrect. It's easy for 2 people who hold incompatible views to both be wrong if both are ignoramuses, and compared to a bright modern fourth grader they both are. >> 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.* > I've said 99 times that nobody can prove they're conscious and nobody ever will, and I've said 99 time that nobody needs to prove it to say yes to the doctor, which is what you call Mechanism. >> 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.* > Which word didn't you understand? The only one I don't is "Löbian machine" > >> 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,* > How odd that both Google and Bing know nothing about a key chapter in mathematical logic! > > *Of course if you know how to build a Turing machine from Turing’s > theory,* > And I do. > *you can build a Löbian machine with the same ease. * > But I don't know how to construct a working Löbian machine and I don't even know how I'd recognize it if I saw one. I'd ask you to tell me how to construct such a device or at least tell me how I can differentiate between a Löbian machine and a non-Löbian machine but I know there is not a snowball's chance in hell of you ever doing that. Instead you'll just type out some ASCII characters and claim that is a machine. > > *I use the purely mathematical notion of machine, like Turing an all > computer scientist.* > *NO!!* Turing told us EXACTLY how to make a real machine, and the fact that it gave birth to a multi trillion dollar industry is proof he was on to something. When I see a multi trillion dollar (or even a multi hundred dollar) Löbian machine industry I'll know you were right. I'm not holding my breath. > *> That is not Aristotle theology.* > Bruno, I don't give a rats ass what is or what is not Aristotle theology. >> Nobody in the history of the world as 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. * And no program in the history of the world has ever calculated 2+2 without the help of a computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Yes hardware needs software but software needs hardware just as much. > 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, Therefore if you don't assume mechanism then you Bruno Marchal are not conscious. Therefore you Bruno Marchal had better assume mechanism > *but the point is that we cannot prove it.* So tell me, do you think It's a little silly to keep making the same point to somebody if they have already agreed with it over and over and over and over again? *> Not that I want defend communism, but I will still be open to the idea, > if it is not imposed by force.* Communism says the state can take all my stuff so it can be equally distributed (although some people are more equal than others), but if I disagree with that idea and don't want anybody to take my stuff then the state must use force, and history has certainly shown they are not shy about doing exactly that. In the 20th century communism was tried in many countries and every single time it has lead to disaster. Of the 4 greatest monsters of the 20th century 3 of them, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, were communists. *> if my mind operate at the level of gluons, (which I agree is newly > plausible), * I would say that is astronomically implausible! * > 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. * You can't replace atoms without replacing gluons and your last year atoms have been replaced. *> You are the one who insist to use God in the christian sense.* OK, so in the language of Brunospeak the following statement is true "Christians think God does not exist". And in Clarkspeak (which is just like English except it reverses the meaning of the words "yes" and "no") if I asked "do you agree 100% with every word I've ever written" you would answer "yes". > *> It looks like brunospeak (and ad hominem term, BTW) * You never named your new made up language and I'm sorry if you don't like "Brunospeak" but I've got to call it something and I certainly can't call it English with so many radical new definitions of very important words. I didn't know what else to call it, if you have another name for your new language I'll use it, although I won't bother to learn the language itself because a language known to only one man is not of much use. If you don't like Brunospeak I have a suggestion, how about Newspeak? *> you admit never having read Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, > Damascius, * Because I have better things to do with my time than to read the ramblings of people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Apparently you don't have anything better to do. >> 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”. > Instead of freezing a cadaver would it be more moral to put it in the ground and let it be eaten by worms or burn it up in a furnace? >> 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.* In Brunospeak (or Newspeak) perhaps it is, you're the expert on that not me. *> It is my definition of atheist: the believer in Matter. * And that is a good illustration of why I had to invent the word "Brunospeak". > 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.* > And that is yet another example of why I had to invent the word "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/CAJPayv3wcnor%3D%2BSS2EGuf5g%2B-YtUNF0jdj8Lex_cEXJZ6etHbw%40mail.gmail.com.
