On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:52:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Feb 2014, at 03:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we need >>>> a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not Alien? >>>> >>>> Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you that >>> it's your hand? >>> >> >> Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference does >> it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as a hand. >> >> >>> Maybe it isn't always obvious that it's my hand... I believe the brain >>> has an internal model of the body. I guess without one it wouldn't find it >>> so easy to control it? A body's quite complicated, after all... >>> >> >> Why should the model include its own non-functional presence though? >> >> >> >> Because the "model", the machine is not just confronted with its own >> self-representation, but also with truth, as far as we are. Put >> differently, because the machine can't conflate []p and []p & p. Only God >> can do that. >> > > I don't see why self-representation would or could go beyond a simple > inventory of functions. > > > []p is self representation only. > But []p & p is not. We can prove that the machine cannot associate > anything 3p-describable for "[]p & p". It is not a representation, but a > (meta) link between representation and truth. >
Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages? Which language's word for rain represents the most truth of rain? Why would we need, for example, one set of functions to calculate the time and another set of functions plus different hardware to display the result of that calculation graphically? If the machine had a link between the display of time and the truth of time, then there would be no additional parts necessary and our representation of time would simply match any machine's representation of time. This would ostensibly occur telepathically, just as all number relations must occur within comp. > > > > > It seems a clear double standard to suggest on one hand that once a > substitution level is met there can be no difference between your sun in > law and a natural person, but on the other hand you are saying that of > course machines can tell a difference between two identical functions just > because one of them feels alien. > > > It is justified in all details. Follow the "math" thread, perhaps. It is > certainly a subtle point. > If it's not translatable into a non-math understanding then I'm not interested. Craig > > 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
