On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > A universal Turing machine can compute all Turing computable functions. > And also all Lambda computable function, and actually, > An abstract universal Turing machine can compute exactly diddly squat . A physical universal Turing machine on the other hand can compute anything capable of being computed. > > Once you accept Yes-doctor, > But I don't accept it unless the Turing Machine simulating me is PHYSICAL. > > If computationalism is true, there is no way for us to distinguish > *introspectively* which universal computations supports us, > So what? We are not limited to introspection, we can observe the outside world and even perform experiments on it and we can easily see that computations are ALWAYS physical, and we can see that the physical brain makes calculations and these calculations are what makes us who we are; change the physical stuff in the brain and the computations change, change the computations and your conscious experience changes. > > human physicalness is an indexical. > H uman physicalness is an indexical what? >> >> Perhaps your "big picture" is just a bit too big. If the fundamental >> meaning of the word "nothing" is infinite unbounded homogeneity in every >> dimension, and I can't think of a better one that conforms with our normal >> use of the word, then your "big picture" is nothing. > > > > > You seem to be negative for the purpose of being negative. > No, I'm being negative for a good cause. One should be negative against illogical ill formed metaphysical ideas masquerading as mathematics. >> >> >> John Clark is not stuck at step 3, >> Bruno Marchal is. >> Bruno Marchal assumes >> the very thing Bruno Marchal is trying to prove, Bruno assumes >> that because >> when >> looking into the past there is >> always >> a unique meaning to the word "you" there will >> be >> a unique meaning to that personal pronoun >> when >> looking into the future too >> ; >> > > > > Not at all. Quite the contrary. All what is used is the talk of each > duplicated people. > If the person is duplicated then the question "what will *YOU* see next?" is not well formed and it is equivalent to "what will flobkneequicks see next?"; neither question has an answer. The question "what will John Clark see next?" has an answer but Bruno absolutely insists on using the personal pronoun, hasn't anyone wondered why Bruno is so adamant about doing so? It's because personal pronouns are a convenient place to hide the gaping holes in Bruno's argument. > > > You are the one using bad religion to invalidate a demonstration, > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. John K Clark -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
