On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> The machine define by the two following equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = > xz(yz) + S ≠ K, and with the combinator induction axiom (that I gave some > posts ago) is already as much conscious than you and me. > > > > Which in it self is a reductio of your theory. > > Why? If you agree with the definition of consciousness that I have given > (true, knowable, non provable, non definable without invoking truth) then > SK+induction *is* provably conscious, and indeed has the G/G* theology > applicable to it. > Come now. That is just the cat=dog argument for which I have often criticised you. You take a superficial resemblance between two things and claim identity. Very poor logic, I must say. "True, knowable, non-provable, definable without invoking truth" is but a poor definition of consciousness, even if it may be a property of your feeble combinators. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLRwEn42sDr7DfakkQfQ5h-2DqbhxBZUQjpv_-v3SkesJw%40mail.gmail.com.
