On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 5:42:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Apr 2014, at 22:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Another part 2 > > On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I keep explaining that arithmetic seen from inside escapes somehow the >>> mathematics accessible to the machine. >>> >>> >>> No need to keep explaining, I understood from the beginning. I'm >>> suggesting that the 'somehow' is due to the machine actually being a >>> reduced set of qualia. Arithmetic is a machine run by sense. >>> >>> >>> No problem with such suggestion, but a suggestion is not a refutation. >>> >>> >>> A refutation may not be possible because comp is too autistic. It >>> refuses to accept any arguments that are not defined in purely logical >>> terms. Insensitivity defines sensitivity in a trivial way. >>> >>> >>> False. It accepts any valid argument. You did not present one. >>> >> >> You're just affirming what I said. Why do you assume that the truth must >> be a valid argument? >> >> >> Truth is not a valid argument. It is not an argument to begin with. It is >> a valuation of a statement. A semantics. >> > > It doesn't have to be a statement. Truth is a quality of congruence across > sensory experiences. > > > For the 1p. >
Anything beyond 1p is begging the question. We can't know if truth extends beyond the nested collective 1p. > Of course, by denying any independent 3p, you just deny that science has > any ability to handle such question, but comp, even if wrong, provides the > counter-example. You deny it from your theory, but that is trivial and beg > the question. > There may indeed be advantages to studying theories that are wrong rather than studying realities that might be impossible to model theoretically, but that doesn't deny science from stretching to fit the new reality. > > > > > >> >> >> >> Some truths are experiential and aesthetic. >> >> >> You confuse p and []p & p. >> > > No, I deny "& p" altogether. > > > > Then you can prove that 0=1. The " & p" has to be added, the machines > already "know" this. > I can suggest that 'prove', '0', '=', and '1' are all sensible conditions which can be expanded or contracted to suit the intended context. 0 can be 'almost 1' in some context, or it can be the opposite of 1 in another context, or it can be an irreducible part of a continuum in another context. > > > > > > >> >> >> >> They appear before logic and cognition. >> >> >> At which level, in what sense of "before"? I need a theory to make sense >> of such terms. >> > > In the sense of there being a possibility of sense without logic but not > logic without sense. > > > In your theory. That begs the question. You can't use your theory in this > discussion. > The only thing that I'm interested in discussing is my theory. It's my theory that makes comp invalid, why would you try to censor it? > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> You just tell us that you know that, but that is not an argument. >>> >> >> I don't say I know it, I say that it makes more sense. >> >> >> That is a progress. It makes more sense to machine too. But "more sense" >> is not an argument, especially in this context. >> > > More sense is better than an argument. Arguments are limited to logic. > > > Logic is applied in argument, about anything. Again, if you need to be > illogical as this point, you make my point. > Logic cannot be applied to aesthetic experience. It is false that it can be applied to anything and it is false that pointing this out makes my point illogical. > > > > >> >> How do you know that a machine that can't feel (like a voice mail >> machine) knows that it can't feel? >> >> >> >> I know nothing (publicly communicable). I just tell you what I assume, >> and what I derive from the assumption. >> >> But I thought you were saying that you have an argument showing that step >> 0 (comp) is invalid at the start. >> > > Comp is invalid at the start because it loses nothing when we assume that > all function can be reduced to logic and hidden logic. > > Computation works as a map of maps, and need have no territory that is > presented aesthetically, either theoretically or empirically. The jump from > map to territory is reverse engineered from the very expectations of our > own awareness, making comp more likely to be a figment of circular > reasoning. > > > Confusion between []~comp and ~[]comp. It would be circular if I was > defending the truth of comp, but I am just showing that your argument beg > the question. > Even if my argument seems to beg the question from a 3p logical perspective, it doesn't matter because the argument assumes from the start that 3p logic is not necessary or sufficient to address consciousness. > > > > >> >> >> >> Why would a more sophisticated machine be any different in that regard? >> >> >> A voice mail machine does not seem to implement a universal machine >> believing in some induction principles, like PA, ZF. >> > > We don't know that the voice mail machine lacks PA and ZF induction > principles, > > > > This is ridiculous. > That's what I say about your sun in law. > > > > any more that I know that machines can't be zombies. Even if that were > true though, I see no reason to presume that the extra functionality added > through PA or ZF need result in any aesthetic phenomena flying around. > > > The point is that you argue for the contrary, but don't present an > argument independent of your non-comp assumption, making it circular. > I don't make a non-comp assumption, I *am* a non-comp assumption. 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/d/optout.
