Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

I go back and forth on the sim thing, based on mood of the day. It may be better to say we are a program, rather than a system of programs made for entertainment, ancestor simulation, whatever Nick Bostrom wants to promote. On the other hand, the technical control for a sim, seems arduous, in

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

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