> On 22 Jul 2019, at 15:14, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:51 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>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? > > The only one I know for a fact to exist.
Nobody can know that a world exist. You would know that you are consistent, making you inconsistent. Of course, we all agree that some reality has to exist, but to claim that it is a material world, like you have used in some of your rebuttal, is not valid. > Maybe Harry Potter's world exists too, but maybe not. > > >> 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. > > Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The > Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past. Unfortunately the use of the knocking table argument has been debunked already by Plato and others, notably by the dream argument. > > > Then “observing a computation” is not defined. > > That's because "defined" is not defined and never will be, you can only learn > what the word means by example and you can't do that without making use of > the physical world. > > > Nobody can observe a mathematical object, but with mechanism, the reasoning > > will show that [...] > > Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the laws > of physics. Assuming primitive matter. Changing the theory is not valid. > > > observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of > > them. > > Mathematical relations between what? Numbers and set of numbers. > Mathematics is a language Confusion between “2+2=4” and the (possible) truth that 2 + 2 is indeed equal to 4. > so it depends on if you're talking about fiction or nonfiction. If the > relation is just between one mathematical object and another with no > connection with the one world we know for a fact to exist Nobody knows for a fat that a material world exist, even the arithmetical world. You need to assume this. And my point is that we can test consequences of this. > then you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel. Nonsense. > But if ultimately there is a connection to the physical world then the > mathematics is telling us a nonfiction story. In the post 529 christian theology, that makes some sense. But I am agnostic. I wait for some evidence. > > >> 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? > > Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things. That is good for all FAPP, but non sensical when doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude. Typically, induce reasoning is not able to make a statement true. That is very elementary epistemology. > > > You invoke an ontological commitment to claim that they are zombies, > > Yep that's me, I can often be found walking down the street confronting > people and shouting at the top of my lungs you are a zombie you are a zombie! > > >> 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. > > And you have never been able to successfully knock down that straw man and > explain why the hell textbooks can't calculate, That follows from Turing’s definition of that is a computation. (Wait perhaps for the glossary, but it will be less soon as I got work). > or explain why all calculations ever observed require not just matter Only to get a result that you can use, but that whole sentence is true in arithmetic already. > but matter organized in the way Turing described. That is not needed, and actually false. The only implementation of Turing machine, in their precise mathematical sense, are in the classroom. > > > Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again. > > Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains things > happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the meaning > conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a rock can't > give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused. Distracting comment unrelated to the point. > > >> 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, > > Universal Turing formalisms can not perform Boolean operations, they can't do > any other sort of calculation either. But a Turing Machine can. When you have a Turing universal machinery, you have a Turing machine, even an infinity of them, and when you have all Turing machines, you have a universal one, indeed an infinity of them. I guess you mean “a real Turing machine”, but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God or miracle, and that is not valid. 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/CAJPayv355%3Dv_CvustM-4pna-c2NR-JYYjwHxw5g0ELO8rXw-CQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv355%3Dv_CvustM-4pna-c2NR-JYYjwHxw5g0ELO8rXw-CQ%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/87C52087-0E82-4490-9F37-7C52301308A0%40ulb.ac.be.
