On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:36 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> definitions can't compute, not even official definitions. Only >> physical machines can compute. > > > *> It is just plain obvious that a definition cannot compute. * > Yes it is utterly obvious, and yet about every third word in your posts about the nature of computing is "definition", "theory" or "proof" even though none of those things can compute. > *> what you seem to miss is that the model* [...] > Models can't compute. *> elementary arithmetic has been shown to be Turing complete.* > Arithmetic, elementary or otherwise, can't compute. But a Physical Turing Machines can *do* arithmetic, and nobody has ever found anything else that can. > > *If the “phantom” computation, that is, the person supported by some > arithmetical computation, are not conscious* > You constantly accuse me of making assumptions but Bruno, you have just made one. Except for yourself any conclusion you make about the consciousness or lack of consciousness of ANYTHING is based on an assumption, and it's an assumption that has zero evidence in favor of it and zero evidence against it. And there is zero chance of that situation ever changing. That's why, in dramatic contrast to intelligence theories, consciousness theories are so easy to come up with, and it's why they are so completely useless. 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/CAJPayv3jZ_oL3Bye89tWyQUyneC%2BssryQv3d2JrThWiQdSn4hw%40mail.gmail.com.
