> On 21 Jul 2019, at 18:47, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > (and I infer “to support genuine consciousness”). > > And every time in the history of the world a change in consciousness resulted > in a change in the physical state of a brain and a change in the physical > state of a brain resulted in a change in consciousness.
Which World? Our local physical world? Sure. But we don’t know if that exists in a fundamental way, so that argument is begging the question. As we don’t assume that such a primitively ontological world, you are also changing the theory. That is not valid. > > > If not, then it is even more weird why you want for matter, given that the > > computation are realised in arithmetic, > > And not once in the history of the world has anyone observed a computation > being made in nothing but a change in arithmetic. In fact nobody has ever > observed a change in arithmetic period. Knocking table argument. Then “observing a computation” is not defined. Nobody can observe a mathematical object, but with mechanism, the reasoning will show that observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of them. > > >>> the whole video game is executed through pure number relation > > >> Incorrect. The whole video game is executed through voltage differences > in the microprocessor. > > > You can implement it, > > You've got it backwards. The numbers don't emulate the voltages in the > microprocessor, the voltages in the microprocessor emulate the numbers. You misquote my text. It is “you can implement it in arithmetic”. > > >> We can use the language of mathematics to help us understand how those > >> voltage differences effect each other, and we can if we wish interpret > >> those voltage differences as numbers. > > > In your theory which assumes a physical universe. > > The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if > something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the > help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work. How do you know that? If Digital Mechanism is assumed, it is a theorem in Peano (or even Robinson) arithmetic that there is an infinity of John Clark (in our usual sense like the one used in step 1 and step 2) who claim the exact same thing. You invoke an ontological commitment to claim that they are zombies, or that you know you are not one of them. > > And that is your cue to refute what I just said by referring to a textbook > that will never be able to calculate 2+2. Straw man,. Nobody has ever claim that a textbook calculates. I guess you confuse “1+1=2” and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2. > > >>> See the combinator thread for a precise disproof of this. > > >> Ah yes, that legendary post > > >Ad hominem. Boring. > > What's boring is your referring to posts that don't exist, your constant > whining and using that incredibly pompous Latin phrase. > > >> post of yours that plugs all the holes in your theory and proves that > >> everything I've said is wrong, the post that you've been talking about for > >> the better part of a decade, the post that NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN. > > > I just said that I have proven that the giving of the lambda expressions > > [x][y]x (which does the same job as K) and [x][y][z]xz(yz) > > I agree, "[x][y]x" does indeed *do* the same job as "K) and [x][y][z]xz(yz)" > because both ASCII sequences *do* precisely NOTHING and 0=0 so they both *do* > exactly the same thing. Nothing. Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again. > > >>The logical operation of every computer ever made can be reduced to a > >>Turing Machine. > > >True but irrelevant. > > How in the world is that fact irrelevant?! > > > Actually it makes my point, but usually, thanks to our physical laws (and > > transistors) the boolean operation will be used to simulate a Turing > > machines. > > Boolean operations don't simulate Turing Machines, Turing Machines simulate > Boolean operations. Boolean operations (XOR, for example) + the duplication (the bifurcating wires) + a delay/clock provides a Universal Turing formalism, and indeed, all physical implementations of any digital machine, like Turing machines, *is* implemented through a von Neumann like machine, itself implemented with the Boolean operations. That constitutes simply another universal system (in the usual Church-Turing sense). > > >> Ironically to rebut my accusation that you keep changing the meaning of > >> "Aristotle theology" you introduced the concept of "Aristotle's second > >> God"; I've never heard anybody mention that before, but I admit you know > >> more about Greek silly ideas than I do. > > > The first God is Aristotle first mover it is [...] > > Bruno, I did ask you not to tell me, I've given up keeping track of your > constantly mutating definitions of common words and invented phrases and > acronyms used by nobody but you. No change of any definition has been done. 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/CAJPayv1d7GdYOeL1hpk9EPU0pSni-gyqs48T7f%3D8%3DxMdPUnJLA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1d7GdYOeL1hpk9EPU0pSni-gyqs48T7f%3D8%3DxMdPUnJLA%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/A4F1E3D3-3CA3-4A2B-80FC-DF758B2765F1%40ulb.ac.be.
