Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics > is a way of brains thinking about things

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 13 Jun 2016, at 22:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/13/2016 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jun 2016, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is a way of brains thinking

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/13/2016 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jun 2016, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is a way of brains thinking about things that was found by evolution, just

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 13 Jun 2016, at 06:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Mechanism implies observable obeys quantum logic and not any other logic, and that the subject obeys intuitionist logic, and not any other logic. What does that mean? Rationally believable is,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 13 Jun 2016, at 03:48, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​We need matter to get physical brain and physical computer, and the same for human and man-made machine consciousness. ​That's all I'm saying, for computation or

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 13 Jun 2016, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is a way of brains thinking about things that was found by evolution, just

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 12 Jun 2016, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is a way of brains thinking about things that was found by evolution, just like mobility, metabolism,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/12/2016 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Mechanism implies observable obeys quantum logic and not any other logic, and that the subject obeys intuitionist logic, and not any other logic. What does that mean? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > We need matter to get physical brain and physical computer, and the same > for human and man-made machine consciousness. ​That's all I'm saying, for computation or intelligence ​or consciousnesses matter is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 13/06/2016 7:12 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is a way of brains thinking about things that was found by evolution, just like mobility, metabolism, reproduction,...and a lot

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that mathematics is a way of brains thinking about things that was found by evolution, just like mobility, metabolism, reproduction,...and a lot of other functions. Bruno doesn't like

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 11 Jun 2016, at 21:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/11/2016 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ ​It makes no difference if the physics is simulated or not; a simulated calculation produces real arithmetic not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 12 Jun 2016, at 00:14, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/11/2016 3:04 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ You seem to equate physics with primary matter, and yet I know of no law of physics that implies primary matter.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 12 Jun 2016, at 00:44, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>​There are no "incorrect calculations". ​2+2=5​ ​> ​It's just a universal Turing machine that runs all one step programs, all two step programs, etc. Some programs

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 12 Jun 2016, at 00:50, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​​>> ​As I've said 6.02*10^23 times it's irrelevant if matter is primary or not, matter is still necessary to make calculations or perform intelligent behavior or

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 12 Jun 2016, at 01:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/11/2016 3:44 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>​ There are no "incorrect calculations". ​2+2=5​ If you programmed a Turing machine to start with "2" and "2" on it's

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Hi Brent, and colleagues, Wow, many posts. I read them in the chronological order, but will try to limit the number of answers by starting from the most recent one (with the other in minds). Some answer has been given by Telmo and Brent, and I might just clarify some points. On 12 Jun

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/11/2016 3:50 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: ​ ​>> ​ As I've said 6.02*10^23 times it's irrelevant if matter is primary or not, matter is still necessary

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/11/2016 3:44 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​>​ There are no "incorrect calculations". ​2+2=5​ If you programmed a Turing machine to start with "2" and "2" on it's tape and print

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> As I've said 6.02*10^23 times it's irrelevant if matter is primary or >> not, matter is still necessary to make calculations or perform intelligent >> behavior or produce consciousness. > > > ​> ​ > I think

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>​ > There are no "incorrect calculations". ​2+2=5​ ​> ​ > It's just a universal Turing machine that runs all one step programs, all > two step programs, etc. Some programs stop. Some programs fall into > infinite

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/11/2016 3:04 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Telmo Menezes >wrote: ​> ​ You seem to equate physics with primary matter, and yet I know of no law of physics that implies primary matter. ​As I've

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > You seem to equate physics with primary matter, and yet I know of no > law of physics that implies primary matter. ​As I've said 6.02*10^23 times it's irrelevant if matter is primary or not, matter is still

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/11/2016 10:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Physics is a description of observable reality. It strikes me nonsensical to say that you "need physics" for something to happen. You seem to equate physics with primary matter, and yet I know of no law of physics that implies primary matter. Not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/11/2016 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​>> ​ ​It makes no difference if the physics is simulated or not; a simulated calculation produces real arithmetic not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:14 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > >>> >> >>> It makes no difference if the physics is simulated or not; a simulated >>> calculation produces real arithmetic not simulated

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​It makes no difference if the physics is simulated or not; a simulated >> calculation produces real arithmetic not simulated arithmetic and a >> simulated brain will produce real consciousness not simulated >>

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

- From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Jun 10, 2016 2:08 pm Subject: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit On 6/10/2016 7:37 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 Brent M

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:39 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >>> > >>> > >>> But WHY? Why does a particular form of matter make it impossible for >>> hisconsciousness to exist in that branch of

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/10/2016 1:23 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 Brent Meeker >wrote: As I understand it, each branch of the multiverse is analogous to a branch in simulation. "Bruno" is just a character, a bundle of attributes, in

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 Brent Meeker wrote: As I understand it, each branch of the multiverse is analogous to a branch > in simulation. "Bruno" is just a character, a bundle of attributes, in > each simulation. The simulation includes (simulated) physics as shared >

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I have read what you said and if you're right and calculations can be >> performed and consciousness produced independently of matter then the >> injection of a particular form of matter into your bloodstream,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> ​>​ >> But WHY? Why does a particular form of matter make it impossible for >> hisconsciousness to exist in that branch of the multiverse if matter is not >> ​ ​ >> needed for consciousness? > > > ​>​ >

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/10/2016 7:37 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 Brent Meeker >wrote: ​> ​ His ​[Bruno's] ​ consciousness is a certain pattern of computational threads and these exist eternally (in PA or equivalent).

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 09 Jun 2016, at 21:06, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​The question is about primary matter, not matter. ​That's your question not mine.​ ​A​s I've said many times, molecules are certainly NOT primary but molecules

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> > >> His >> [Bruno's] >> consciousness is a certain pattern of computational threads and these >> exist eternally (in PA or equivalent). Poisoning

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 Brent Meeker wrote: > ​> ​ > His > ​[Bruno's] ​ > consciousness is a certain pattern of computational threads and these > exist eternally (in PA or equivalent). Poisoning his material merely makes > it impossible for his consciousness to be manifested

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/9/2016 12:06 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal >wrote: ​> ​ The question is about primary matter, not matter. ​That's your question not mine.​ ​A​ s I've said many times, molecules are certainly NOT

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The question is about primary matter, not matter. > ​That's your question not mine.​ ​A​ s I've said many times, molecules are certainly NOT primary but molecules certainly exist and molecules certainly are

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 08 Jun 2016, at 20:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​"I" is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.​ ​> ​If that were true, you would die when we throw out your actual matter and give you a digital body, ​No

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:04 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > How do we define matter, and how do we define energy. ​If it has no rest mass then it's matter. If it's moving through a vacuum at the speed of light then it's energy. If the thing

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​ >> ​>> ​ >> "I" is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.​ > > > ​> ​ > If that were true, you would die when we throw out your actual matter and > give you a digital body, > ​No it would not because a

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 07 Jun 2016, at 21:26, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​INTEL must be making a mighty good assumption because it gets the job done. If you don't make INTEL's assumption then you can't calculate ​2+2. ​> ​That has

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

g-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: ​ ​>> ​ INTEL must be making a mighty good assumption because it gets the job done. If you don't

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> INTEL must be making a mighty good assumption because it gets the job >> done. If you don't make INTEL's assumption then you can't calculate ​2+2. > > > ​> ​ > That has nothing to do with the fact that I > ​ >

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 06 Jun 2016, at 22:47, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​show me a computation that doesn't use matter that obeys the laws of physics and I'll understand it better.​ ​ ​> ​Read the original paper by Church or Post. ​I

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> show me a computation that doesn't use matter that obeys the laws of >> physics and I'll understand it better.​ >> ​ >> > ​> ​ > Read the original paper by Church or Post. > ​I can't because all the papers

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:57, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Peano Arithmetic (RA + the induction axioms) proves that all computations exist. ​Proving an answer exists is not the same as proving you have the answer, or even

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Peano Arithmetic (RA + the induction axioms) proves that all computations > exist. ​Proving an answer exists is not the same as proving you have the answer, or even proving that in theory an answer can be found.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 02 Jun 2016, at 19:30, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​All the papers that I have seen written by you, or by anybody else, are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, please point me to some that aren't but don't

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> All the papers that I have seen written by you, or by anybody else, are >> made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, please point me to some that >> aren't but don't use matter to do so. > > > ​> ​ > But the'

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 31 May 2016, at 23:29, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​>​> ​arithmetic​,​​ ​elementary​ or otherwise, doesn't lead to complexity or to anything else. Dawkins like Darwin was interests in ​what matter can do (like

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

it is to us. -Original Message- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 1, 2016 12:18 pm Subject: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:33 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

ing, unsuccessfully, for something deeper. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. John K Clark > > > -Original Message- > From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> > To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Tue, May 31, 2016 9:11

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

; To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tue, May 31, 2016 9:11 pm Subject: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit On Tue, May 31, 2016 , spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ Being picky, what are electrons made out of? ​As

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ​> ​ >> Carl Sagan postulated that a primary particle like an electron, might >> each be a universe unto itself. >> > > Naah. That was a sci-fi radio episode of X-1 circa 1950. Sagan, who > wasn't even a physicist,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, May 31, 2016 , spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > Being picky, what are electrons made out of? ​As far as we know electrons aren't made of anything, electrons are fundamental. ​ > ​> ​ > Are electrons arguably, material? ​Electrons have

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 5/31/2016 4:07 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Carl Sagan postulated that a primary particle like an electron, might each be a universe unto itself. Naah. That was a sci-fi radio episode of X-1 circa 1950. Sagan, who wasn't even a physicist, never postulated such nonsense.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Being picky, what are electrons made out of? I know that 10 years ago, U of Minnesota, in the US, tried to used supercooled helium to see if electrons gave evidence of sub particles. Last year, a trio of physicists in Italy deduced that electrons would last 5 quitillion times the current age

<    1   2   3