On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 3:09:31 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Feb 2020, at 18:38, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >>> >> What could be a "wrong" thesis about Watson and/or Holmes? >> >> >> Good question. It would be like making a summary of a novel, which would >> be wrong. If you say “Tintin never got to the moon” you are wrong, with >> respect to the novel, and false, with respect to the mundane reality. But >> if you say that the number 18 is prime, you are false, even among the >> aliens. >> > > If your literature professor didn't fail you, he or she should have. I say > this without irony or humor intended. > > Nobody in the world, other than servitor humblebrag here, claims to know > or have an authoritative grasp on where "mundane reality" ends and where > the land of fiction and wishful thinking begins. Sure, we may know that > some abstraction may or may not be locally more effective given some more > or less defined domain... but that's far from claiming absolute > reality/truth. > > > I certainly do not claim the truth of Mechanism. I derive consequences of > it, and insist that Mong the consequence, nobody can know if Mechanism its > true, at least in some public way. Of course, someone having got an > artificial brain; can, privately be happy with it, but still cannot claim > it to be known as true. > > Somewhere you talked about Mechanism as a metaphor. Here mechanism > explains why this always fail. Mechanism is just the assumption of the > existence of a level where we are Turning emulable, but then that level > cannot be known, and that is why it requires, for the practitioners, some > act of faith. The ethic of mechanism is that mechanism could be wrong, and > should never been enforced. It asks for an explicit consent, or refusal. To > say yes to the doctor implies the right to say no. >
You can't post without bringing up mechanism, thereby assuming very ambitiously that everybody you meet consents (where are your "ethics of mechanism"?) to your use of what is still a metaphor, in absence of convincing evidence that even a tiny part of reality, one complex organism, can indeed be emulated effectively enough, that we'd have sufficient context to even approach the question. Show us successful emulations of just one complex organism, say your favorite "worm", instead of bringing up conways gol in conways gol. The latter is easy, while the former... just show us and we'll see. PGC -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34148dfd-0c52-4702-93d0-044d210f390f%40googlegroups.com.
