On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:26 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> To win a debate with you over the nature of computation I am not > required to say anything about consciousness, > > > *But you are the one saying that the “phantom computation” is not > conscious.* No I am NOT the one saying that! I'm the one saying bringing up consciousness in a discussion about computation is a waste of time and will not help anyone better understand how the world works because there is only one thing in the universe any of us can know with absolute certainty to be conscious. I'm the one saying a Physical Turing Machine can make a calculation that has a property that your phantom airy fairy "calculation" made by a textbook sitting on a shelf does not have, the ability to *do* things that are observable; for example buy Bitcoins. >> I mean it's not as if you've ever said anything enlightening about it. > > > > >* You evade the question* I'll repeat what I said in my last post, because you have not stated "the question" it sounds to me like you don't remember or have never known what "the question" is, so it's not surprising you are unsatisfied with my answer to "the question". > *> you can't succeed, because either that matter role is ...> 1) ...not > Turing emulable, * We know for a fact a Turing Machine made of matter that obeys the laws of physics can emulate a Turing Machine made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. And we know for a fact that a Turing Machine made of matter that obeys the laws of physics is the only type of Turing Machine anybody has ever observed that can actually *do* something. *> and in that case you have to abandon Computationalisme, * If a Physical Turing Machine can produce a mind then there is no reason another Physical Turing Machine could not emulate the machine that is producing the mind. > *> 2) … is Turing emulable, but then that role * is* emulated in the > arithmetical reality,* NO! Arithmetical reality wouldn't even exist if matter that obeys the laws of physics didn't have the ability to make calculations if it's organized in the general sort of way Turing described. > and the “phantom computation” is conscious. Bringing up consciousness in a discussion about pretty much anything leads to nowhere. *> you come back with the knocking table argument,* No, instead I think I'll come back with a quote from YOU, one of the very few I agree with completely: "*Nobody has found a non physical machine to emulate a physical machine, indeed, we cannot make energy from natural numbers alone*". So even you admit that there is at least one thing that physics can do that pure mathematics can NOT. 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/CAJPayv1SGcG_Gib2_bMdxM7EKzioJd-5wkwDYN0ycO8TF6E3cQ%40mail.gmail.com.
