On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:21:38 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 2:44:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 21 Sep 2019, at 17:00, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 4:02:09 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> I think he means one can replace a human brain and/or nervous system >>> with computer microchips and consciousness will be preserved, or perfectly >>> simulated so the person who says "Yes doctor", will awake from the surgery >>> thinking he/she's the same person, like awakening from unremarkable >>> surgery. From my pov, this belief is a huge, huge stretch since we can even >>> define what consciousness IS. AG >>> >> >> Bruno; does "Yes doctor" mean that a patient accepts as fact that >> removing his/her brain and/or nervous system and replacing it with >> microcircuits preserving the same functions, yields a surgical result such >> that the patient upon awakening seems to him or herself, and others, as the >> same "person" who previously approved the surgery? >> >> >> The patient cannot accept this as a fact. It is something he can hope >> only. Then, if mechanism is true, by definition he was correct, but even >> after the operation, he cannot claim that as a fact, despite its personal >> impression. He might have lose a faculty and not be aware of it, like >> people can become blind and be unaware of the change, in some special brain >> disease (anosognosia). >> >> >> >> Is this the essence of mechanism? If not, please elaborate. TIA, AG >> >> >> >> Yes, it is mechanism, but it requires an act of faith. >> >> Now, to be sure, taking a plane, or even a bike, requires some faith too, >> but here, that play an important role in the sequel, and so that nuance has >> to be taken into account. >> >> Rational machine have a surrational corona extending what they can >> justify. That corona has a precise mathematical structure, and is used to >> derive the laws of physics from arithmetic. >> >> Bruno >> > > Can you name one law you have established or proved using your theory? AG >
Calculating everything, even if that were possible, doesn't mean you know anything! How would you know our universe uses inverse square for gravity (to a good approximation) and not inverses of higher order? Also, since no computer can calculate a single irrational number, they can only calculate to a measure zero (the rationals) of what exists; not to mention the finite time constraint for any of these calculations. AG > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/f2deceff-c0b2-4991-b54b-c8b78a8b46e8%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2deceff-c0b2-4991-b54b-c8b78a8b46e8%40googlegroups.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/724bb52f-9ce3-4cd9-9e1b-6323630c5138%40googlegroups.com.
