On 03 Jan 2017, at 02:01, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> The primary cause may be attached to the word
"God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, so is "a
being who can think".
> That is exactly what the greeks put in question.
I don't give a damn about the idiot ancient Greeks! You believe
something called "God" exists so I'm asking you one simple
question that has a simple yes or no answer, do you think I'm
smarter than God? If the answer is yes then I don't see why anybody
should care if God exists or not. If the answer is no then we can
stop playing silly word games.
> the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical
sentence thinks is also not an obvious one.
Well I can think, if the set of true arithmetical sentence
s can not then I can bring something to the table it can
not, and that can only be matter that obeys the laws of physics.
Also, it's not valid to talk about a set if you have no way of
constructing that set, and you have no way of constructing a set
that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones;
much less do so without the help of matter that obeys the laws of
physics.
>> To hell with the ancient Greeks!
> Which greeks.
Just the ones that are ancient.
>> To hell with the ancient Greeks!
> I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much
I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse
physicists who ever lived. Full stop.
It was wrong, but in science, it is an honor to be shown wrong when it
leads to progressing in some domain. The point is that you seem to buy
its theology, but it is not compatible with Mechanism, that you buy too.
> that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato.
Bruno, I hate to break it to you but Plato didn't even know
where the sun to went at night. This is the 21st century and we're
on a list that is supposed to discussing cutting edge developments
in science and mathematics, so why are we still talking about a bozo
like Plato?
Because he got a theology which is compatible with mechanism, unlike
the paradigmatic theology of the gnostic atheist and most other
believers. Of course he bought it to Pythagoras, Parmenides, and
others, and Plato itself just asks the good question.
> I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated
christian,
Do you think they are any less silly? I can find little evidence
of that.
The first believe or fake to believe in irrational fairy tales. The
second believes usually in Aristotle theology (a physical primary
universe) but know that it is a sort of assumption in need to be
verified continuously, and that it can be refuted (well if educated
and know the current literature).
> The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in
physics.
I know, and that's why the notion of computation can not by
itself perform any computations.
That is wrong. The computations are done relative to the universal
number doing the universal computations, and this does not need
anything physical.
In fact even a notion can not be a notion without something to have
the notion, something like a brain.
Only people have notion. They use brain, but the brain itself has no
notion of anything a priori. You make Searle's error of believing that
you are your body, but that makes no sense with Mechanism.
And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.
Only material brain, but it is simpler to explain matter from
arithmetic and experience, than arithmetic and experience from matter,
which is just impossible if we assume digital mechanism.
> It is done in all textbooks on computability theory,
Show me one textbook on computability theory that can
compute 2+2
I said that the point I w&as doing is done in all details in all books
on computability. I did not say "by", only "in".
The idea that it is the book which computes is just insane, and was
not what I was saying. I stop here because you don't read the post
again, or just play with words.
Bruno
and I'll concede the argument. But I have found that all
books are pretty dumb unless there is something with a brain to read
them. And I have yet to run across a brain that is not made of
matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this,
If all mathematicians believe books can compute then all
mathematicians are insane.
> and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge.
If most physicists believe books can compute then most physicists
are insane.
>> I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence.
> But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve
the easy problem.
OK, consciousness is the way data feels when it's being processed.
Problem solved. Now it's your turn, tell me how to make an AI in
your next post. That's going to be a very long post!
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.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
