subject:"\"Re\\\: Comp\\\: Geometry Is A Zombie\""



On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but  
we never need 10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world  
whose TOE is derived from comp either. :-)


False. because now I need to calculate it to make my point:

10^120 + 1 =
100
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01

I told you, an infinitesimal!

Nothing compare to the finite, but really huge, number that I  
described some years ago, to illustrate some use of diagonalization,   
on this list (omega + [omega] + omega, if you remember).








The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games  
is far bigger.

And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are  
uninteresting.


The number of possible brain connection, and thus possible subjective  
state is about equal to 60,000 ^ 10.

Does that makes all brains non interesting?

Look, if you argue seriously that comp is not interesting because it  
uses that for all x we have x ≠ x + 1, I think most people will  
conclude that comp is winning.







And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some  
rare Roses have heard rumors that can happen, but all rational  
Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal.


Hmm... It depends of the context. The cardinal of the monstrous finite  
simple group is usually considered as a big number, as nobody expected  
such a big number to occur there.




Except instead of seeing this as a bizarre problem indicating  
something is awry about their theories, they happily invent  
transfinite numbers.



You might read paper by P. Dehornoy, who solved a problem in braid  
theory, with application is physics, by using large cardinal in set  
theory. Then later it is has been possible to prove Dehornoy's result  
without using those cardinals, but the result has still be found  
through them.


Comp is ontologically finitist, though, but not ultrafinitist, indeed.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not  
not Y then X is gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other  
out so you get  "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a  
poison" which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity  
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that  
there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject  
to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to  
assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other  
than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from  
the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful,  
aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a  
conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a  
process that is either random or deterministic.

It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by  
"completely" random.

Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...)  
make good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess  
you know that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible contains  
maximal information, but no way at all to decode it.

But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.

Not at all. The interest of algorithmic information theory is that it  
defines a notion of finite random sequence (any sequence whose length  
is as long as the shortest program to generate it). The notion is not  
constructive and is defined only up to a constant, but it has its  
purpose). Infinite random sequence are defined by having all their  
finite initial segment non compressible.

I do have have a notion of "completely random" though, I define it  
by  "completely arbitrary".
My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000...  
(only zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need "actual  
infinities", and thus Set Theory, even enriched one by some strong  
axioms.

There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of  
normality. In that case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I  
think it is still an open problem to prove that, but it has been  
proved for Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0,  
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it  
contains all arbitrary sequences of digits.

I thought Karl Popper invented that, except in binary,  
0100100111000100010110001...

?

Bruno

Brent

Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly  
deterministic.

In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1  
which is partially deterministic, and partially non deterministic  
(in different senses).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6138 - Release Date:  
02/28/13

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you  
know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about  
what you can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no  
testable consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an  
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

I don't know that all machines cannot think,


Thanks God.



but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could  
are rooted in bad assumptions from the start.



Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the  
question.


The assumption is that sense can be reduced to or produced by  
arithmetic.


You have not yet studied comp. That assumption is not in comp. On the  
contrary it is shown explicitly that machine's sense is not reducible  
in any way to anything finitely presentable.
I can excuse you because comp + materialism leads to that error, and  
many account of comp do that error, but both UDA and AUDA single that  
error. On the contrary, computer science and mathematical logic  
prevents computationalism, well understood, to fall in the  
reductionist trap. But you are the one continuing to defend a  
reductionist conception of numbers and machines.






We can see this in the language example that I mentioned:

If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them  
optically, but these categories don't lead to discovery of any  
phonetic information. Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to  
any semantic information.


Each level of meaning of the text is defined by the capacities of  
the interpreter - not to compute arithmetic relations, but to have  
experienced meaningful expression through different sense modalities  
(visual, audio, grammatical, semantic, poetic...etc) .


The fact that we can formalize these relations mathematically only  
accounts for the idea that any public presentation can be digitized  
and represented presented,


Up to here, comp entails what you say.




not that there could be any such thing as presentation or private  
experience.


That's ambiguous, and comp contradicts it, if you say that comp  
pretend there is a 3p presentation of private experience.






There are countless examples of this which I have brought up,  
showing clearly that while logic or arithmetic is an obvious  
extraction of sensory-motor experience (as we ourselves learn math  
through gestures, moving fingers, beads, or other objects), sensory  
experience is not a plausible outcome of any arithmetic process.


You are right on this. But a process is a 3p thing, akin to Bp.  
Experience is given by Bp & p, which can already not been formalized  
in any 3p term. We can bet on such relation, and that is what we do  
when saying yes to a doctor, but this make a detour to some notion of  
arithmetical truth, which is beyond all processes.





We have seen no arithmetic process which is not part of a human  
experience or public physics, yet life on Earth does not require us  
to perform mathematics at all.


That mixes many levels.





Some of the examples I have mentioned:

John Wayne's Resurrection: Using a computer to reconstruct John  
Wayne's images and voice, high quality interactive movies are  
produced in real time, with an AI interpreter. While it should be  
easy to understand that this bit of interactive theater does not  
constitute a conversation with the Duke himself, it is argued here  
that I can't know that this absurdity isn't true.


Elvis the Anti-Zombie: Having a computer articulate my limbs and  
vocal chords to imitate Elvis Presley perfectly, by Comp, there is  
no reason to believe that I would begin to experience more and more  
Elvis qualia. That if I acted enough like The King, then I must have  
memories of his life, know the people he knew, etc. Again, the  
absurdity is plain, but here, it is sufficient to dismiss it with  
"You Don't Know That".


Geometry is A Zombie: It's pretty simple really. An abacus can be  
used to compute geometric functions - we could find the length of a  
hypotenuse if we knew the other sides, for example. Moving these  
beads around and counting them does not require any kind of  
triangular presentation. If the universe were truly arithmetic - if  
it was all one giant quantum abacus...where would we get geometry  
from, even in principle. Forget the fact that it is ob

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 01 Mar 2013, at 17:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at  
all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from  
sensory experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?

Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.

But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and  
beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the  
axioms and theorems of geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all  
- which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed  
to have no capacity to render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to  
manipulate objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as  
examples of intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They  
certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see  
shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.



You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual  
environment which has no 3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs  
into a random number generator instead of a camera, it would still  
try to avoid certain kinds of expected patterns in the data, even  
though there is absolutely no connection to shapes, rocks,


That would be a Rover's dream




geometry, or understanding.


That's beg the question.

Bruno




Craig

Brent


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at  
all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from  
sensory experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?

Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.

But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and  
beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the  
axioms and theorems of geometry.


I would not say that. It is the model of the axioms. Even the intended  
model, most of the time, except that sometimes we develop interest in  
some new model, like with non Euclidian geometry.






Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all  
- which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed  
to have no capacity to render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to  
manipulate objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as  
examples of intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They  
certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see  
shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.



I agree with your point. I doubt it will convince Craig, but that  
seems a difficult task.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 5:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are 
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything 
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in reply to 
Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think"  Then you turn around and 
assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms."


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated 
assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then 
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human 
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Hi Brent,

Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a choice?


Sure.  But it'd be same kind of speculation as to how a human might prefer potatoes to 
tomatoes.


Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or 
in what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
understanding, but
you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
assertions
aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
evidence...but how
do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, 
in reply
to Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think"  Then you turn 
around
and assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms."


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are 
always
going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for 
all
possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological 
and
inorganic material could strike a thinking balance


You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
forms your
brain.


I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among atoms though, 
we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize.


Do you just write the first thing that comes into your head?  Did you not stop to reflect 
that the difference between organic and inorganic applies to *molecules*, not atoms?




I don't assume that atoms built the brain,


I know.  You assume things like mechanism is perpendicular sensitivity but yes-and-no 
don't make yellow (although in quodlibet logic it does).


I think that human experience built human brains out of living cells, using specific 
substances.


So experience preceded brains.  And what was it experience OF?


It's a collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.






- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which 
is
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those 
forms and
functions.


The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
"perpendicular
axes" is just something you made up.


Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only contribution to the 
topic - ad hominem sour grapes?


What's ad hominem about calling word salad what it is.






This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
consciousness are
the least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more 
robotic
something is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or 
coincidental. If you
understand why that symmetry is meaningful,


That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what 
they mean.


If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what I am talking 
about, which you just made clear above.


That's the first thing you've written that I can fully agree with.

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Stephen P. King


On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty,
mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that 
repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You 
say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, 
in reply to Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think"  Then 
you turn around and assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless 
mechanisms."


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, 
then maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more 
than tomatoes then that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence 
that would tell you whether a human being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Hi Brent,

Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a 
choice?





I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and 
developed an irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  
He knew something bad would happen but he couldn't stop himself from 
thinking about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist.  The 
psychiatrist told him that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he 
might as well try it.  So he did.


When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.

She said,"Oh, my God!" and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked 
at him and said, "What happened to the potato peeler?"


He said, "I think she got fired too."

Brent



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>> It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
>>> what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
>>>  
>>
>> It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
>> understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated 
>> mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they 
>> aren't evidence...but how do you know? 
>>
>>
>> For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
>> reply to Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think"  Then you 
>> turn around and assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless 
>> mechanisms."  
>>  
>
> It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they 
> are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be 
> the case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a 
> fusion of biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance 
>
>
> You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
> forms your brain.
>

I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among 
atoms though, we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize. I don't 
assume that atoms built the brain, I think that human experience built 
human brains out of living cells, using specific substances. It's a 
collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.
 

>
>  - the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism 
> (which is functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to 
> those forms and functions. 
>
>
> The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
> "perpendicular axes" is just something you made up.
>

Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only 
contribution to the topic - ad hominem sour grapes? 


>
>  This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
> consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. By 
> definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and that 
> is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
> meaningful, 
>
>
> That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what 
> they mean.
>

If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what 
I am talking about, which you just made clear above.


>  then you will have no problem being confident 
>
>
> Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.
>

I have never heard you say anything which was not expressed with confidence.
 

>
>  that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at 
> all. It's not just the boundary between living and non-living (which I 
> would not rule out being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all 
> qualitative boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, 
> anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges.
>  
>
> Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet.  At one time 
> "many" and "big" were just qualities.
>

No. Quantity is a quality of counting. Many and big are still qualities, 
counting just makes them impersonal and precise.

Craig


> Brent
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:37:41 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> > All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation 
>> quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
>>
>
> And a computer can be and often is the interpreter. 
>

If that were the case then computers could not understand an audio file was 
audio until they listened to it with innate computational ears which just 
so happened to match the rendering of human ears. 

This is the same reason why we can't play a DVD with our tongues. There is 
a huge difference to us between detecting pits on a Mylar disc and watching 
a move. To a computer, as long as it is labeled as a dvd image, it will try 
to open it with an application which is specified for that file - even if 
that application controls an electric can opener instead of a video screen.

>
> > You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video 
>> screen instead of an actual video screen. 
>>
>
> Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan 
> then a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the 
> spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want 
> that.
>

Right, you wouldn't want that because it would be all but worthless to a 
human being. As worthless as a video screen image is to a computer. All 
video display equipment is useless to computers for that reason; because 
there is no perceiver there. No high level sensory-motor participant. There 
are only numerous low level sensory-motor experiences which we have not 
seen transform themselves into anything more sophisticated by themselves.

>
> >There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.
>>
>
> As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated 
> flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. 
>

No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level. All 
simulations supervene on that physical level. This is why a simulated flame 
need not burn a simulated object at all. It is entirely up to the 
programmer's whim how the laws of physics will work, or indeed if they are 
lawful at all in any given sim, or across many nested sims. Simulated flame 
can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not a single one of those 
simulated flames can access the physical level...because they aren't real - 
they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's public 
senses.

> A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your 
> finger. And some things cross all levels, like information processing; 
> there is no difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or 
> between simulated intelligence and real intelligence.
>

There is no such thing as real arithmetic. It's all a simulation. That's 
why they call numbers figures or data - they have no reality to them except 
what coordinated sensory experience can provide.

>
>> >  Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal 
>>
>
> A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid 
> detector could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal. 
>

Nope. I could just print a menu on the back of a Turkey and spray a menu 
with aminos. It will be eating the menu in no time.

>
>  >> A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear 
>>> produces no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing 
>>> is true of the experimental artificial eye.   
>>>
>>  
>>
> > Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see. 
>> Without the person, the implants won't do anything  worthwhile.
>>
>
> Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now 
> you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception 
> will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will 
> never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic 
> can not be destroyed by it.
>

Only an eye or ear made of meat will be 100% satisfying - which is why the 
quality of the implants are crap. I don't see how anything I've said 
contradicts that.

>
> > it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which 
>> application to associate it with.
>
>
> Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without 
> a neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.
>

False equivalence. Your computer would have to be missing it's electronics 
to compare properly. You are floating a premise that there is some state of 
consciousness in which we cannot tell the difference between an audio and a 
visual experience but your example allows no experience at all.

>
> How can you have spent any time programming a computer without noticing 
>> that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will just 
>> halt/fail/error?
>>
>
>

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
but you
are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions 
aren't
anything other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do 
you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
reply to
Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think"  Then you turn around 
and
assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms."


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are always going 
to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for all possible 
machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological and inorganic material 
could strike a thinking balance


You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them forms 
your brain.

- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is functions 
of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those forms and functions.


The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity "perpendicular axes" is 
just something you made up.



This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of consciousness are the 
least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more robotic something 
is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why 
that symmetry is meaningful,


That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what they 
mean.


then you will have no problem being confident


Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.

that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not 
just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out being more 
of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative boundaries, between physics and 
chemistry, biology and zoology, anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely 
quantitative bridges.


Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet.  At one time "many" and "big" 
were just qualities.


Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
>> order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
>>
>>
>> Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
>>  
>
> It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
> but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
> assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
> evidence...but how do you know? 
>
>
> For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
> reply to Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think"  Then you 
> turn around and assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless 
> mechanisms."  
>

It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are 
always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the 
case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of 
biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance - the 
point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is 
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those 
forms and functions. This is what I keep trying to say - things which have 
a lot of consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. 
By definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and 
that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
meaningful, then you will have no problem being confident that although 
life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not 
just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out 
being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative 
boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, 
anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges. 
The is no combination of yes and no which turns yellow.

>
>  If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then 
> maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?
>  
>
> If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than 
> tomatoes then that will be evidence. 
>

Choice is a matter of perspective. It only exists because we (or most of 
us) can see that we can't rule it out without choosing to rule it out. We 
have no reason to extend this condition to inanimate objects. Nothing as 
ever suggest that we should, and it would generally be considered psychotic 
to do so adamantly in public.

> It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human being 
> preferred potatoes to tomatoes.
>

Evidence cannot access consciousness. We can only use sensitivity, 
intuition, reason, and experience. It is consciousness upon which all forms 
of evidence supervene.

>
> I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and 
> developed an irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  He 
> knew something bad would happen but he couldn't stop himself from thinking 
> about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist told him 
> that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he might as well try it.  So he 
> did.  
>
> When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.  
>
> She said,"Oh, my God!" and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked at 
> him and said, "What happened to the potato peeler?"
>
> He said, "I think she got fired too."
>

Hehe. Hard times for Spud Sluts.

>
> Brent
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
> quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
>

And a computer can be and often is the interpreter.

> You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video
> screen instead of an actual video screen.
>

Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan then
a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the
spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want
that.

>There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.
>

As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated flame
won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame
won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. And some
things cross all levels, like information processing; there is no
difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or between
simulated intelligence and real intelligence.

> >  Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal
>

A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid detector
could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal.

>> A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces
>> no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of
>> the experimental artificial eye.
>>
>
>
> Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see.
> Without the person, the implants won't do anything  worthwhile.
>

Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now
you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception
will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will
never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic
can not be destroyed by it.

> it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which
> application to associate it with.

Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without a
neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.

How can you have spent any time programming a computer without noticing
> that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will just
> halt/fail/error?
>

Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly follow
the laws of physics either. And I have never been able to consistently
predict what a computer is going to do even if I'm the one who wrote the
program, and you're no better at making such predictions than I am, nor is
anybody else.

> it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is
> just a source of generic binary instructions.
>

And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those
generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound.

>  computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = no
> high quality experience.
>

You have no pathway whatsoever to judge the quality of experience of even
your fellow human beings, the best you can do is observe there behavior and
then guess; and yet you continue to make these grand sweeping statements
about what a computer does and does not feel without a shred of evidence or
theoretical justification, and that's as tiresome as it is stupid.

> > Plug a cochlear implant into a computer and the raw data remains raw all
> the way through. There is no conversion to any sense modality
>

HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW!

> I understand why computers have no experience.
>

Your "understanding" is based on amorphous mystical drivel.

> > A computer is only going to say what it is programmed to say.
>

BULLSHIT! The human programer himself does not know what the computer is
going to say next.

> If it has no vocabulary which refers to human experiences of sound, it
> will have nothing to say about some new stream of generic data that related
> to aural sensation. It's not going to try to express anything about the
> experience of sound.
>

Of course the computer could comment on aural sensation but it wouldn't
matter if it did it 10 times a day and gave you brilliant insights into
Beethoven's music you never had before, you would not change your ideas one
iota, you'd just say that's "just" something or another and so it doesn't
count.

> It's a fact that thus far implants do not compare favorably to natural
> cochlea.
>

Is that what your ideas hinge on, the lack of audio fidelity using current
electronic technology? When future technology makes electronic ears that
provides better fidelity than ears made of meat will you then admit you
were wrong. Of course not!

> It's not important though - even if the implant sounded perfect,
>

I thought as much.

> you would rather believe that a roll of toilet paper with holes in it is
> as smart as anyone
>

Although for practical reasons I would recommend using electronics, a roll
of toilet

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.

Repeated assertions aren't evidence.

It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?

For one thing because you contradict them yourself. You just posted, in reply to Bruno,
"I don't know that all machines cannot think" Then you turn around and assert,"they are
always going to be empty mindless mechanisms."

If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated
assertions can become evidence?

If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.

I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and developed an
irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler. He knew something bad would happen
but he couldn't stop himself from thinking about it. He finally went to a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist told him that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he might as well try
it. So he did.

When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.

She said,"Oh, my God!" and rushed to pull down his pants. She looked at him and said,
"What happened to the potato peeler?"

He said, "I think she got fired too."

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
> It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
> order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
>
>
> Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
>

It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
evidence...but how do you know? If a mechanical potato peeler can someday 
learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?

Craig

>
> Brent
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what order, they 
are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them 
> optically, but 
> > these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information. 
>
> Sure they do.  Just try 
> http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar 
>

No. That is an example of taking data associated with optical characters 
and data associated with sound card signals as two given data sets and 
deriving a relationship statistically. If you don't have one of those data 
sets however, for example, if I make up a written language of symbols and I 
decide whether or not those symbols have sounds associated with them, the 
computer has no idea what I have decided. It makes no difference whether 
it's my private ad hoc language or a language with millions of speakers.

>
> > Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic 
> information.  
>

> Have it read "Fetch the paper." to you dog and see if there's semantic 
> information.  Or if 
> you have a modern house, have it read "Lights ON." 
>

That depends on whether the dog understands the commands or not, doesn't 
it? I remember back in the days when remote controls were actually 
'clickers'. The Zenith console color TV did indeed respond differently to 
the three different metallic clicks the remote made - and it also responded 
randomly to keys jangling, coins spilling out on a glass table, loud 
noises, etc. There is *nothing* semantic about conditioned response 
behaviorism. It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together 
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless 
mechanisms.

Craig

>
> Brent 
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them optically, but 
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information. 


Sure they do.  Just try http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar


Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic information.


Have it read "Fetch the paper." to you dog and see if there's semantic information.  Or if 
you have a modern house, have it read "Lights ON."


Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120 
+ 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world whose TOE is derived 
from comp either. :-)




The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is far bigger.
And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are uninteresting.



And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare Roses have heard 
rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal. Except instead of seeing 
this as a bizarre problem indicating something is awry about their theories, they happily 
invent transfinite numbers.


Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X
is gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so you get  
"alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real 
world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything,
abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either 
random or deterministic.

It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by "completely" random.

Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make good attempts. 
This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know that. Sequences algorithmically 
incompressible contains maximal information, but no way at all to decode it.

But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.

I do have have a notion of "completely random" though, I define it by  "completely 
arbitrary".

My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000... (only 
zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need "actual infinities", and thus Set 
Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.

There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of normality. In that 
case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think it is still an open problem to prove 
that, but it has been proved for Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0, 
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it contains all arbitrary 
sequences of digits.

I thought Karl Popper invented that, except in binary, 
0100100111000100010110001...

Brent

Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly deterministic.

In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which is partially 
deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in different senses).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6138 - Release Date: 02/28/13

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>> You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
>>> about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
>>> know...either. :-)
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
>>> testable consequences. 
>>>
>>
>> Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
>> omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
>>
>>
>> You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think. 
>>
>
> I don't know that all machines cannot think,
>
>
> Thanks God.
>
>
>
> but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could are 
> rooted in bad assumptions from the start. 
>
>
>
> Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the question.
>

The assumption is that sense can be reduced to or produced by arithmetic.

We can see this in the language example that I mentioned:

If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them 
optically, but these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic 
information. Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic 
information.

Each level of meaning of the text is defined by the capacities of the 
interpreter - not to compute arithmetic relations, but to have experienced 
meaningful expression through different sense modalities (visual, audio, 
grammatical, semantic, poetic...etc) .

The fact that we can formalize these relations mathematically only accounts 
for the idea that any public presentation can be digitized and represented 
presented, not that there could be any such thing as presentation or 
private experience.

There are countless examples of this which I have brought up, showing 
clearly that while logic or arithmetic is an obvious extraction of 
sensory-motor experience (as we ourselves learn math through gestures, 
moving fingers, beads, or other objects), sensory experience is not a 
plausible outcome of any arithmetic process. We have seen no arithmetic 
process which is not part of a human experience or public physics, yet life 
on Earth does not require us to perform mathematics at all.

Some of the examples I have mentioned:

John Wayne's Resurrection: Using a computer to reconstruct John Wayne's 
images and voice, high quality interactive movies are produced in real 
time, with an AI interpreter. While it should be easy to understand that 
this bit of interactive theater does not constitute a conversation with the 
Duke himself, it is argued here that I can't know that this absurdity isn't 
true.

Elvis the Anti-Zombie: Having a computer articulate my limbs and vocal 
chords to imitate Elvis Presley perfectly, by Comp, there is no reason to 
believe that I would begin to experience more and more Elvis qualia. That 
if I acted enough like The King, then I must have memories of his life, 
know the people he knew, etc. Again, the absurdity is plain, but here, it 
is sufficient to dismiss it with "You Don't Know That".

Geometry is A Zombie: It's pretty simple really. An abacus can be used to 
compute geometric functions - we could find the length of a hypotenuse if 
we knew the other sides, for example. Moving these beads around and 
counting them does not require any kind of triangular presentation. If the 
universe were truly arithmetic - if it was all one giant quantum 
abacus...where would we get geometry from, even in principle. Forget the 
fact that it is obviously impossible for beads on bamboo sticks to 'imply' 
triangles without an abacus user imagining that - the deeper problem is 
that sense is completely redundant to computation. There is no good reason, 
no bad reason, no maybe reason, no reason at all for computation to assume 
any form other than the one it is already in, which is *no form*.

Then there's the pathetic fallacy. We know that language has these poetic, 
metaphorical layers of meaning. We know that we use language to 
anthropomorphize inanimate objects. We can call a ship 'she' or give a 
computer a name like Watson. Not only is it absurd to take these uses of 
languages literally, we should actively beware of the influence of this 
kind of cognitive bias. It's complicated because we can be too generous 
with some things and too prejudiced against some people, but at the same 
time, we can still be right about correctly recognizing the impersonal 
nature of objects and machines. We don't get in the line of fire of a 
machine gun and try to scare it or bluff it.

If you conflate arithmetic and sense from the beginni

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 3/1/2013 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.


But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and 
beer steins
as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and 
theorems
of geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - which 
is
obviously the case within a computer which is designed to have no capacity 
to
render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate 
objects in
3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and 
possibly
conscious, machines. They certainly understand somethings about geometry 
and they
can see shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.


You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual environment which has no 
3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs into a random number generator instead of a 
camera, it would still try to avoid certain kinds of expected patterns in the data, even 
though there is absolutely no connection to shapes, rocks, geometry, or understanding.


All that shows is that the camera is part of the rover's understanding.  If we fed false 
signals into your optic nerve you'd run into things too.


There's absolutely no connection between your assertions and any facts.

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you  
know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about  
what you can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no  
testable consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an  
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

I don't know that all machines cannot think,


Thanks God.



but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could  
are rooted in bad assumptions from the start.



Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the question.



If we don't what consciousness actually is and what it does, then we  
skip the important part and reverse engineer a false confidence in  
unconscious programs.



And Bruno said, from Memory, in Sylvie and Bruno (Lewis Carroll): "I  
am so happy that I hate spinach, because, you know, if ever I could  
appreciate spinach, I guess I would eat some of them, and that is  
exactly what I would like never to think possible".


You beg the question again.

Betting that machine could be conscious does not entail that we know  
what consciousness is or rely on. You have a reductionist view of  
science, leading you to close prematurely an inquiry.


All rational computationalist are open to the falsity of comp, and  
what I show is that [comp + precise theory of knowledge] becomes  
refutable, so that we can progress.


But up to now, comp explains a lot of things, even if incorrect,  
notably the apparent many worlds, the quantum like logic of  
observation, the existence of non communicable truth and sensations,  
and eventually some non trivial Plotinian theology.


In a sense comp explains why first person are not machine, and only  
borrow them to say hello to others machines. Why would not some  
immaterial programs be able to support human first person?


I am not saying that this is true, only that it makes possible to  
formulate the mind problem, indeed to translate it into a problem in  
number theory.


Bruno




Craig



Bruno





Craig

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am  
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism  
might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I  
recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it  
may be only a convenience.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy  
notion. A brain too is convenient. Universes can be convenient. I  
am not sure to see your point.




In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but  
we never need 10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.

The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is  
far bigger.

And string theory points on 10^500 theories.

And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare  
Roses have heard rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows  
that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)



We make an axiom of succession and assume it applies to 10^120 like  
other numbers,


But then working on the prime number distribution, some bound on some  
function get *far* higher than that.




but maybe that is because it easier than thinking of axioms to  
describe how we really calculate: 10^88 + 1 = 10^88.


Like it is easier to make the earth turning around the sun than the  
contrary. If you are for complex theories a priori, ...



There's a book "Ad Infinitum" by Rotman that proposes something  
along these lines, but he writes like a French philosopher so I  
found it hard to tell whether his idea really works.  But we do know  
that real computers work, and their mathematics are finite.


That's correct on one level, and incorrect on another level. The  
metamathematics of the finite mathematics is not finite. Some proof of  
the correctness of some algorithm in numerical analysis can requires  
big cardinals. Real computers might do finite things, but they do very  
complex things which might involve very large numbers, or high  
cardinal or ordinal, for human figuring out why they acts like they  
can act.


With comp you can put infinities only in the mind, as I do, but we  
have still to study that mind, and needs infinite mathematics for that.
With comp the ontology is finitist, but that ontology is seen by  
inside, by finite creatures,which have to imagine very large  
unboundable structure, needing stronger mathematics, just to get  
notions of meaning, etc.


Also, some could argue that only the mathematical universal machine is  
finite, and that a "real computer" (if that notion makes sense) is an  
infinite analogical quantum field living in an infinite dimensional  
Hilbert spaces.


I put my card on the table, and reason. I don't defend a truth about  
some reality. To use the notion of universal machine to formulate the  
mind-body problem in the frame of some hypothesis is a different task  
than to program a computer to perform some "useful" task in real time.


Bruno








Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not  
not Y then X is gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out  
so you get  "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison"  
which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity  
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that  
there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to  
the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert  
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than  
gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from  
the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful,  
aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a  
conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process  
that is either random or deterministic.

It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by "completely"  
random.

Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make  
good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know  
that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible contains maximal  
information, but no way at all to decode it.

I do have have a notion of "completely random" though, I define it by   
"completely arbitrary".
My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000...  
(only zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need "actual infinities",  
and thus Set Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.

There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of  
normality. In that case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think  
it is still an open problem to prove that, but it has been proved for  
Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0,  
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it  
contains all arbitrary sequences of digits.

Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly  
deterministic.

In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which  
is partially deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in  
different senses).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>  The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all 
>> indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
>> experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?
>>
>>
>> Sure. Can you prove it?  
>>  
>
> Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?
>  
>  
>>  
>> Computers prove theorems in geometry.  
>>
>
> But they don't need geometry to do it.
>  
>  
>> As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
>> steins as points, lines, and intersections.
>>  
>
> It could be, but it isn't. That's my point. 
>
>
> Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and 
> theorems of geometry. 
>
>  Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - 
> which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed to have no 
> capacity to render shapes that it can see.
>  
>
> Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate 
> objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of 
> intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They certainly understand 
> somethings about geometry and they can see shapes.  That's how they avoid 
> running into big rocks.
>
>
You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual environment 
which has no 3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs into a random 
number generator instead of a camera, it would still try to avoid certain 
kinds of expected patterns in the data, even though there is absolutely no 
connection to shapes, rocks, geometry, or understanding.

Craig
 

> Brent
>
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated
from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences of
shapes.
Can you dispute this?

Sure. Can you prove it?

Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?

Computers prove theorems in geometry.

But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer
steins as
points, lines, and intersections.

It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.

Then you don't have a point. Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and theorems of
geometry.

Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - which is obviously
the case within a computer which is designed to have no capacity to render shapes that
it can see.

Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate objects in
3-space. Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and possibly
conscious, machines. They certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see
shapes. That's how they avoid running into big rocks.

Brent

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:39:05 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
 about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
 testable consequences. 
  
>>>
>>> Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
>>> omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
>>>  
>>>
>>> But I can make an empirically informed one.
>>>  
>>
>> That means that you claim to have empirical information about 
>> consciousness beyond another person's information about their own 
>> consciousness. 
>>
>>
>> (a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond 
>> somebody elses.
>>
>>  How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone 
>> else can't?
>>  
>>
>> (b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.
>>  
>
> No, I said this:
>
>  >> The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
>> only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.
>>
>  
> >As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
> HELL DO YOU KNOW?   
>  
> My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
> audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
> who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to 
> understand why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers 
> which identify their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the 
> computer. 
>
>
> That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an 
> environment.  When you talk about "seeing" or "listening" that implies an 
> environment of photons or acoustic waves carrying information about the 
> environment.  When you then switch to a computer that has no photon or 
> acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a 
> strawman.
>
> Even speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
> fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
> microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
> makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
> treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
> into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
> computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
> at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
> experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?
>
>
> Sure. Can you prove it?  
>

Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?
 

>
> Computers prove theorems in geometry.  
>

But they don't need geometry to do it.
 

> As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
> steins as points, lines, and intersections.
>

It could be, but it isn't. That's my point. Geometry could be about Boolean 
arithmetic and have no forms at all - which is obviously the case within a 
computer which is designed to have no capacity to render shapes that it can 
see.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>
>
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 
>>
>>
>> You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
>> about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
>> know...either. :-)
>>
>> Brent
>> blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
>> consequences. 
>>
>
> Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
> omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
>
>
> You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think. 
>

I don't know that all machines cannot think, but I understand why the 
reasons for assuming that they ever could are rooted in bad assumptions 
from the start. If we don't what consciousness actually is and what it 
does, then we skip the important part and reverse engineer a false 
confidence in unconscious programs.

Craig

 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Craig 
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.

You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you
know about
what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can
know...either. :-)

Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no
testable
consequences.

Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an
omniscient
claim against someone else's non-omniscience.

But I can make an empirically informed one.

That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness
beyond
another person's information about their own consciousness.

(a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond somebody
elses.

How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else
can't?

(b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.

No, I said this:

>> The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can
only tell
what application might be associated with opening that file.

>As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE HELL
DO YOU KNOW?

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or audio qualities
of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone who has worked with computers
for long enough should be able to understand why this is indesputably true. Files have
flags and pointers which identify their type, they are not looked at or listened to by
the computer.

That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an environment. When you
talk about "seeing" or "listening" that implies an environment of photons or acoustic
waves carrying information about the environment. When you then switch to a computer that
has no photon or acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a
strawman.

Even speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is fundamentally
different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in microelectronics have no
origination bias. This is the very thing that makes computers useful - they don't care
what you do with them. They will treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need
to reconstruct it into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining
qualities of computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences
of shapes. Can you dispute this?

Sure. Can you prove it?

Computers prove theorems in geometry. As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about
tables, chairs, and beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.

Brent

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 =
x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.

I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.

Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such
hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8
put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all
scientific paper though.

It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way. I recognize it
difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it may be only a convenience.

OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy notion. A brain too is
convenient. Universes can be convenient. I am not sure to see your point.

In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120 +
1. We make an axiom of succession and assume it applies to 10^120 like other numbers, but
maybe that is because it easier than thinking of axioms to describe how we really
calculate: 10^88 + 1 = 10^88. There's a book "Ad Infinitum" by Rotman that proposes
something along these lines, but he writes like a French philosopher so I found it hard to
tell whether his idea really works. But we do know that real computers work, and their
mathematics are finite.

Brent

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X is
gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so you get  "alcohol 
is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world 
that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
abandon
anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random 
or deterministic.

It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by "completely" random. Things are 
only random in the sense of not being strictly deterministic.

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know  
about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you  
can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no  
testable consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an  
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

Bruno





Craig

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not  
Y then X is gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out  
so you get  "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison"  
which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity  
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there  
are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the  
naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert  
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the  
email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka  
gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a  
conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process  
that is either random or deterministic.

It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Bruno

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show  
that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically  
anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic  
in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the  
numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to  
be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your  
axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate  
them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the  
equational theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much  
the number than elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can  
count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers  
or notches or marks.  So what are you calling an "assumption"  
in this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The  
experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.


But "justify logically" seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We  
just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms,  
which we also make up, preserve 'true'.



We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here  
the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano  
Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then  
we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial.




To say that it is "justified logically" seems to mean no more  
than "we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know."


Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do  
have intuition. Well, in physics too.





  Sure it's important that our model of the world not have  
inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex  
contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't  
justify anything.


Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself  
hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I  
think you ask too much for a justification.


You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed  
it is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
"justification" as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere "motivation".


Where did I say "motivation"?


"The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically."



I use the term "intuition", and I demote nothing, as it correspond  
to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third  
hypostase, Bp & p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes "proof", formal or informal.


Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no  
stronger than the axioms.


And axioms are no stronger than the capacity to make sense of them.


That's correct, and that's why when we assume comp we need at the  
start a Turing universal theory, capable of representing the partial  
computable functions, incmuding universal functions. With comp the  
universal machine, which compute the universal function (alxays in the  
Church Turing sense) are capable of making sense of the axioms, and  
prove a lot of things about them. Such machines can prove their own  
limitation, and bet on what is beyond them.


Bruno















I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty  
sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might  
save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I  
recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it  
may be only a convenience.


You need it, or equivalent, to define "machine", "formal systems",  
"programs", "Church's thesis", "string theory", "eigenvector",  
"trigonometry", etc.





My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an  
hypothesis of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in  
infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need  
just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails  
s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based  
on this.


I think you need

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show  
that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically  
anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic  
in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the  
numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to  
be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your  
axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate  
them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the  
equational theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much  
the number than elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can  
count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers  
or  notches or marks.  So what are  
you calling an "assumption" in this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The  
experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.


But "justify logically" seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We  
just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms,  
which we also make up, preserve 'true'.



We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here  
the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano  
Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then  
we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial.




To say that it is "justified logically" seems to mean no more  
than "we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know."


Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do  
have intuition. Well, in physics too.





  Sure it's important that our model of the world not have  
inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex  
contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't  
justify anything.


Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself  
hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I  
think you ask too much for a justification.


You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed  
it is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
"justification" as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere "motivation".


Where did I say "motivation"?


"The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically."


Indeed. It is the inductive inference part of the learning process. It  
is very important. All theories, including "brains" comes from this.








I use the term "intuition", and I demote nothing, as it correspond  
to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third  
hypostase, Bp & p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes "proof", formal or informal.


Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no  
stronger than the axioms.


Sure.












I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty  
sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might  
save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I  
recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it  
may be only a convenience.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy notion.  
A brain too is convenient. Universes can be convenient. I am not sure  
to see your point.






You need it, or equivalent, to define "machine", "formal systems",  
"programs", "Church's thesis", "string theory", "eigenvector",  
"trigonometry", etc.





My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an  
hypothesis of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in  
infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need  
just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails  
s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based  
on this.


I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in  
order to prove things like Godel's theorems.


That follows from the axiom above. It is easy to prove this, and  
Gödel's incompleteness,  *in* the theory, if the theory has the  
induction axioms. If the theory h

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On 28 Feb 2013, at 14:58, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed  
it is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
"justification" as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere "motivation".




Hi Bruno and Brent,

Where did I say "motivation"? I use the term "intuition", and I  
demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero  
of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp & p; S4Grz1, etc.).


   ISTM that 'motivation' is a 3p view of 'intuition'!


I don't see this at all. Motivation is somehow even more a  
psychological notion than 'intuition', which admit logical  
specification.






But justification for me invokes "proof", formal or informal.


   Justification requires a model and/or implementation,no?


Not necessarily, in case of formal justification, or in first order  
logic: we need only formulas and sequences of formulas, at the meta- 
level.











[BM] I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am  
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might  
save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though. You need it, or equivalent,  
to define "machine", "formal systems", "programs", "Church's  
thesis", "string theory", "eigenvector", "trigonometry", etc.




   I need to be sure that I understand this: Numbers are prior to  
computations. Is that correct?


Once you agree on the axioms and rules of elementary arithmetic,  
numbers and computations coexist, like even numbers and prime numbers.  
You can' have one without the other.





If so, then ultrafinitism fails, but if computations are prior to  
numbers, ultrafinitism (of some kind) seems inevitable. I have  
always balked at step 8 in that is seems a bridge too far... Why  
does the doubt have to be taken so far?


It is a conclusion. We will come back on step 8 on the FOAR list,  
soon. In your neutral monism, primary matter (and thus time and space)  
also does not exist. I don't see why you have a problem with this non- 
existence at the ontological level, given that those have to be  
explained at some other level.









My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an  
hypothesis of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in  
infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need  
just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails  
s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based  
on this.


Bruno



   I still don't understand how we cannot assume some implicit set  
with even arithmetic realism. How are integers not a set?



You can assume the numbers, without assuming sets. That means that set  
will not be "first order citizen" in the reality that you assume, a  
bit like classes in ZF set theory.
Set appears at the metalevel, when you assume only numbers. They can  
appear also as "mental" objects in the mind of the relative numbers,  
but they are not existing objects, you can't prove ExP(x) with x  
denoting them, unless you represent a set by a numbers, which can be  
done for the RE sets, but not for any set. But yes, some set will  
exist, even explicitly, through some possible representations. But  
those sets are not assume, then, they are proven to exist.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>> You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
>>> about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
>>> know...either. :-)
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
>>> testable consequences. 
>>>  
>>
>> Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
>> omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
>>  
>>
>> But I can make an empirically informed one.
>>  
>
> That means that you claim to have empirical information about 
> consciousness beyond another person's information about their own 
> consciousness. 
>
>
> (a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond 
> somebody elses.
>
>  How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone 
> else can't?
>  
>
> (b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.
>

No, I said this:

>> The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
> only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.
>

>As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
HELL DO YOU KNOW?   

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to understand 
why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers which identify 
their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the computer. Even 
speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?

Craig

> Brent
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
about what
ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
know...either. :-)

Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
testable
consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
omniscient claim
against someone else's non-omniscience.


But I can make an empirically informed one.


That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness beyond 
another person's information about their own consciousness.


(a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond somebody 
elses.


How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else 
can't?


(b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>> You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 
>>
>>
>> You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
>> about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
>> know...either. :-)
>>
>> Brent
>> blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
>> consequences. 
>>  
>
> Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
> omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
>  
>
> But I can make an empirically informed one.
>

That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness 
beyond another person's information about their own consciousness. How can 
you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else can't?

Craig
 

>
> Brent
> strawman, n. a misstatement or exaggeration of an opponents position in 
> order to make it easier to refute.
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 2/28/2013 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X is
gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so you get  "alcohol 
is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world 
that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
abandon
anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random 
or deterministic.

Brent

Hi Brent,

Perhaps you are trapped in a false dichotomy. Both of those terms (random and 
deterministic) assume, ISTM, a classical model of the universe. I accept the classical 
model only as a cartoon that has worked so so for a long time, but has outlived it 
utility. We know better, the universe is quantum mechanical. I believe that our minds 
are only capable of comprehending Boolean representable (or degradations thereof) 
concepts of the universe, thus we fail miserably to comprehend what it means to live in 
a QM universe.

So what's your third way that is neither random nor deterministic?

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about 
what ways
John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-)

Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an omniscient claim 
against someone else's non-omniscience.


But I can make an empirically informed one.

Brent
strawman, n. a misstatement or exaggeration of an opponents position in order to make it 
easier to refute.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is
not not Y then X is gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so 
you get  "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is 
gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that 
makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are 
distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive 
representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the 
email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka 
gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that 
is either random or deterministic.

Brent

Hi Brent,

Perhaps you are trapped in a false dichotomy. Both of those terms 
(random and deterministic) assume, ISTM, a classical model of the 
universe. I accept the classical model only as a cartoon that has worked 
so so for a long time, but has outlived it utility. We know better, the 
universe is quantum mechanical. I believe that our minds are only 
capable of comprehending Boolean representable (or degradations thereof) 
concepts of the universe, thus we fail miserably to comprehend what it 
means to live in a QM universe.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
> You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 
>
>
> You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about 
> what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
> know...either. :-)
>
> Brent
> blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
> consequences. 
>

Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.

Craig 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John 
knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
consequences.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:52:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote
>
>  >>> Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video 
 file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, 
 not 
 any kind of audio or video sensitivity.

>>>
>>> >> Please explain the difference between the two.
>>>
>>
>> > In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes 
>> which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the 
>> latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file 
>>
>
> You have no way of knowing if I can actually see or hear, all you know is 
> that I behave as if I do. It's exactly precisely the same situation with a 
> smart computer. 
>

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You are 
using a double standard whereby you claim to be omniscient about what I can 
or can't know.

Of course this is all sophistry. All that matters is that we understand 
that there is no presentation quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in 
the interpreter. Since you can open any raw file as a video, audio, text, 
3-D printing, etc that would mean that all data would have to inherently 
have all possible sensory modalities contained within it. You are really 
saying that we could use a program that acts like a video screen instead of 
an actual video screen. That would be nice, but it can never happen, 
regardless of how sophisticated software becomes. There will never be an 
app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.

>  
>
>>  > It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on 
>> a menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any 
>> good.
>>
>
> Are you now saying that a digestive system is linked to consciousness?  
>

I am saying that the menu is not the meal. Computers do menus, but not 
meals. Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal 
(among other things).

>
> >> You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file
>>>
>>
>> > Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The 
>> file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll. 
>>
>
> A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces no 
> sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of 
> the experimental artificial eye.   
>

Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see. 
Without the person, the implants won't do anything  worthwhile.

>
> > A player piano has no awareness of music,
>>
>
> It must be grand being a "hard problem" theorist because it's the easiest 
> job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say 
> "yeah but it's not conscious" and there is no way anybody can prove you 
> wrong.  
>

Your argument then is that a player piano has an awareness of music. Maybe 
we should give scarecrows the right to vote also.

>
> > The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
>> only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.
>>
>
> As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
> HELL DO YOU KNOW?  
>

Because it won't be able to open any file without software to identify 
which application to associate it with. If the computer could tell the 
difference, then we wouldn't need to have programmed instructions. Do you 
seriously believe that changing an .mp3 to a .txt file makes the computer 
dizzy? How can you have spent any time programming a computer without 
noticing that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will 
just halt/fail/error? How could it be any clearer that a player piano has 
no experience of music. It's a piano being played by a paper roll. 

> > it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is 
>> just a source of generic binary instructions. 
>>
>
> And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those 
> generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound. 
>

Sure, computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = 
no high quality experience. Plug a cochlear implant into a computer and the 
raw data remains raw all the way through. There is no conversion to any 
sense modality - no way so simulate synesthesia or blindsight.

> If you believe that the deaf reported truthfully ( do you?) why wouldn't 
> you believe a computer if it said the same thing? 
>

Because I understand why computers have no experience. A computer is only 
going to say what it is programmed to say. If it has no vocabulary which 
refers to human experiences of sound, it will have nothing to say about 
some new stream of generic data that related to aural sensation. It's not 
going to try to express anything about the experience of sound.

> But maybe the deaf person is lying too, of course

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote

>>> Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video
>>> file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not
>>> any kind of audio or video sensitivity.
>>>
>>
>> >> Please explain the difference between the two.
>>
>
> > In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes
> which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the
> latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file
>

You have no way of knowing if I can actually see or hear, all you know is
that I behave as if I do. It's exactly precisely the same situation with a
smart computer.


> > It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on a
> menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any
> good.
>

Are you now saying that a digestive system is linked to consciousness?

>> You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file
>>
>
> > Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The
> file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll.
>

A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces no
sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of
the experimental artificial eye.

> A player piano has no awareness of music,
>

It must be grand being a "hard problem" theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
"yeah but it's not conscious" and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.

> The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can only
> tell what application might be associated with opening that file.
>

As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE
HELL DO YOU KNOW?

> it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is
> just a source of generic binary instructions.
>

And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those
generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound. If you believe
that the deaf reported truthfully ( do you?) why wouldn't you believe a
computer if it said the same thing? But maybe the deaf person is lying too,
of course we could tell a story to a deaf person with a cochlear implant
and they could correctly answer questions about it but that's just behavior
and were talking about qualia and
deafness does not make you incapable of lying. Or maybe they think they
experience the qualia of sound but its nothing like the grand and glorious
thing you experience. Or maybe Mozart would say you think you have
experienced the qualia of sound but it's nothing at all like the wonderful
thing he has. All this is pointless time wasting speculation because none
of it can ever be proved or disproved.


> >> It's like saying you can't tell if a book is written in English if
>> there are no English words in it!
>>
>
> > No, it's like saying that you can tell if a book is written in Japanese
> even if you don't speak Japanese.
>

Maybe you can but I can't, I couldn't tell if it was Chinese or Korean or
just a bunch of squiggles made up by a graphics designer yesterday.

> translating language from one generic code into another are mechanical
> processes which can be easily programmed.
>

No, translating languages is extremely difficult and until about 5 years
ago computer translations were so bad that the only reason to do it is the
belly laugh you'd get out of it. Back in the computer Precambrian of 2007
or 2008 the consensus was that computers couldn't make good translations
unless they had some understanding of what was being said, I think they
were right, and computers make dramatically better translations now than
they did in 2007.


> > It's funny, sometimes ideas which can't be proved wrong are that way
> because they are actually right.
>

Don't be so modest, your ideas about consciousness are twice as good as
that, not only can they never be proven wron they can never be proven right
either.


> > People with a hard left-brained approach are not going to be able to
> look at consciousness independently of forms and functions
>

I understand as well as you do that there is such a thing as consciousness,
but I also understand that because it has no observable consequences
obsessing over it is a complete waste of time if your goal is to obtain
some understanding of how the world works. So when you make rubber stamp
comments like "a computer can never know X" or "a computer can never feel
Y", comments that you simply decree without evidence, comments you have no
way of knowing, comments neither you nor anybody else can ever prove or
disprove even if the machine behaves as if it knows and feels those things
then I respond with rubber stamp comments of my own.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y
then X is
gibberish,

> X = alcohol Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so you get "alcohol
is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world
that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything,
abandon
anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random or
deterministic.

Brent

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

Thanks. I think you pretty much covered it :)

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:59:55 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
>  
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>   
>>
>>   >> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
>>> then X is gibberish,
>>>
>>
>> > X = alcohol   Y = poison. 
>> becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"
>>  
>
> Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so you 
> get  "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is gibberish 
> just like I said.
>  
>
> Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes 
> the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in 
> the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of 
> Aristotelian syllogisms.
>

Yeah I think even seeing a Venn diagram would be too frightening. How can 
seawater be both the sea and water? It must be gibberish.
 

>
>   
>
>> > If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
>> abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.
>>  
>
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.  
>  
>
> And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
> johnk...@gmail.com  is only accidentally meaningful, aka 
> gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.
>
>  
>   >> And it's not ad hominem if it's true.
>>>  
>>
>>  > Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are 
>> true or not? 
>>
>
> It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually said 
> was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X is Y and X 
> is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated blather with ad 
> hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel that a attack on 
> blather is a attack on you personally. 
>
>   John K Clark
>  
>
> What about the case where some supposedly conscious being constantly 
> calls itself names? Auto ad hominem? LOL! By your own logic we are force to 
> consider you a self-inflicted zombie.
>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not
not Y then X is gibberish,

> X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out so 
you get  "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison" which is 
gibberish just like I said.

Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that 
makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are 
distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive 
representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.

> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.

And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the 
email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka 
gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

>> And it's not ad hominem if it's true.

 > Why would it make a difference whether your personal
accusations are true or not?

It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually 
said was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X 
is Y and X is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated 
blather with ad hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel 
that a attack on blather is a attack on you personally.

  John K Clark

What about the case where some supposedly conscious being 
constantly calls itself names? Auto ad hominem? LOL! By your own logic 
we are force to consider you a self-inflicted zombie.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we 
> don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), 
> then we cannot derive them.
>
>
> I'm not sure how you mean that?  
>
>
>  I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in 
> appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All 
> theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal.
> So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and 
> want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can 
> derive the numbers from the equational theory:
>
>  Kxy = x
> Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
>  + few equality rules,
>
>  But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the 
> number than elementary arithmetic.
>
>  
>  
>  
>  We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them 
> by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks.  
> So what are you calling an "assumption" in this?
>  
>
>  A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences 
> motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically.
>  
>
> But "justify logically" seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We just make 
> up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make 
> up, preserve 'true'. 
>
>
>  
>  We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the 
> question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for 
> example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which 
> can be quite non trivial.
>
>  
>  
>  To say that it is "justified logically" seems to mean no more than "we 
> have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know."
>
>
>  Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have 
> intuition. Well, in physics too.
>
>  
>  
>  
>Sure it's important that our model of the world not have 
> inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex 
> contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify 
> anything.
>  
>
>  Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself 
> hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask 
> too much for a justification. 
>  
>
> You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too 
> much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such "justification" as 
> can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere "motivation".
>  
>
>  Where did I say "motivation"? 
>  
>
> "The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically."
>
>
>  I use the term "intuition", and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to 
> the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp 
> & p; S4Grz1, etc.). 
> But justification for me invokes "proof", formal or informal.
>  
>
> Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no 
> stronger than the axioms.
>

And axioms are no stronger than the capacity to make sense of them.
 

>
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure 
> that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.
>  
>
> I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.  
>
>
>  Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with 
> such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save 
> physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
> The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically 
> all scientific paper though. 
>  
>
> It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I 
> recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it may be 
> only a convenience.
>
>  You need it, or equivalent, to define "machine", "formal systems", 
> "programs", "Church's thesis", "string theory", "eigenvector", 
> "trigonometry", etc.
>
>  
>  
>  
>  My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an hypothesis of 
> convenience.
>
>
>  I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, 
> unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe 
> (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like 
> provability and computability are based on this.
>  
>
> I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in order to 
> prove things like Godel's theorems.
>
> Brent
>
>  
>  Bruno
>
>  
>   http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>  
>  
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Dat

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume
them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.

I'm not sure how you mean that?

I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from
which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk
about the numbers have to be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk
about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers
from the equational theory:

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than
elementary arithmetic.

We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting
them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you
calling an "assumption" in this?

A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the
theory, but does not justify it logically.

But "justify logically" seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of
logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'.

We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is
really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we
don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial.

To say that it is "justified logically" seems to mean no more than "we have avoided
inconsistency insofar as we know."

Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in
physics too.

Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least
if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere
consistency doesn't justify anything.

Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with
comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification.

You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to
expect from such a weak source. I look for such "justification" as can be found from
experience, which you demoted to mere "motivation".

Where did I say "motivation"?

"The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically."

I use the term "intuition", and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first
person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp & p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes "proof", formal or informal.

Logical proof is relative to axioms. So the justification can be no stronger
than the axioms.

I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x,
x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.

I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.

Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such hypothesis,
and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on
this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all scientific
paper though.

It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way. I recognize it difficult
to do mathematics without it, but still it may be only a convenience.

You need it, or equivalent, to define "machine", "formal systems", "programs", "Church's
thesis", "string theory", "eigenvector", "trigonometry", etc.

My intuition doesn't reach to infinity. It seems like an hypothesis of
convenience.

I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, unlike in set
theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and
that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based on this.

I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in order to prove things like
Godel's theorems.

Brent

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For m

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie