On 24 Dec 2012, at 00:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/23/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
Good points. The contrast is usually qualia-v-quanta. I think
color can be communicated and we have an "RGB" language for
doing so that makes it more quanta than qualia. So extending
your point to Schrodinger, if you're a wine connoisseur you have
a language for communicating the taste of wine. Most of us
don't speak it, but most people don't speak differential
equations either. But those are all things that can be shared.
The pain of a headache generally can't be perceived by two
different people. But there are experiments that use small
electric shocks to try to produce objective scales of pain. So
I think you are right that it is a matter of having developed
the language; I just don't think color is the best example.
I disagree here. No qualia are communciable in the sense that
quanta, or numbers, are communicable. We can talk and understand
talk on color only because we bet that we share similar
experience in front of electromagnetic wave with certain wave-
length.
We only agree on numbers and counting because we distinguish
objects in the same way.
We only can distinguish objects in the same way because we have
brain which can use numbers and count, in the universal way.
We bet it is universal and that seems to work (most of the time) -
but the same is true of representing colors by numbers. We do it
that way, instead of representing numbers by colors, because our
discrimination of colors is not quite as good as our discrimination
of objects (e.g. some people are color blind).
We don't have to bet the brain is (Turing universal), we can prove it.
We bet on Church thesis, simply.
Bruno
Brent
Otherwise your mother could not have taught you to count.
I still feel guilty how much I made my mom suffering on this.
1, 2, What!?!, I stopped already at 2. What is that? Why?
With the amoeba I got acquainted with the 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ...
idea.
But it will take me the reading of Nagel & Newman "Gödel's proof"
to get the 0, 1, 2, 3, ... profoundness, and to decide to study
mathematics instead of biology.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
