On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > >>>> Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of >>>>> consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm >>>>> pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the >>>>> johnkclak >>>>> program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Only by a confusion 1p and 3p, >>>> >>> >> >> OK now were getting to the heart of the matter (no pun indented). >>> Explain exactly why my statement above is confused and or wrong and you >>> will have won this year old debate. >>> >> >> > UDA is the explanation of this. >> > > You're going to have to more than just type 3 letters to convince me! > > > You agreed also that consciousness is not localized >> > > Yes I agree, in fact it was me not you who first mentioned it. > > > but you talk like if the object on your desk are localized. >> > > Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious being > but can't emulate a desk? If my consciousness is caused by a computer > processing information then the world that consciousness interacts with is > also cause by information. And information like consciousness has no unique > position. > > > If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps supported by many >> other computations (in a physical universe or in arithmetic) you need to >> explain why the object of your desk appear to be made of local matter >> > > Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the John > Clark subprogram; the desk could appear however the master programer (or > evolution) wished it to appear, he could even ignore the laws of physics if > he wished and use Aristotelian physics, or road runner cartoon physics. > > >> it's been over a year and to be honest I don't even remember what the >>> first 2 steps were, they may have been just as silly as step 3. >>> >> >> > This shows the complete non seriousness of your attitude. >> > > I promise to give your ideas all the seriousness they deserve. > > > it means that you have judged from rumors and not personal study. >> > > You and I have never met so the only thing I have to judge you by is by > studying the ASCII sequence you have produced. And I have never heard any > rumors about you but now you've got me curious, what are they? > > > You are an obscurantist religious bigot >> > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard > that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > and parrot >> > > Stop using the exact same ridiculous insult and I'll stop using the exact > same rubber stamp reply. > > John K Clark > probably the kiss of death since I'm a known lunatic , but I vouch for John here but would probably say comp itself as stated in Chuch/say-yes-to-doctor thesis, already drops the consciousness issue betweee n the cracks. Nothing wrong with the UDA after that, but consciousness wasn't being 'carried' to begin with.
-- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
