On 10 Apr 2017, at 19:12, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> Religion requires dogma about the nature of reality,
> Let us avoid the term religion.
Fine idea.
> better to use "theology"
Astrology or palmistry would work just as well as theology, so
would examining animal entrails.
> Theology, when done scientifically...
... is no longer theology.
>>There is no evidence a mind needs a infinity of calculations,
>Indeed. but a brain, or any piece of matter do.
Matter can perform calculations, but there is no evidence even one
calculation needs to exist before matter can exist, let alone an
infinite number of them.
>>>The brain is only a local map of the locally accessible
computational continuation.
>> If the brain is only the map and mind is the territory then
changing the map won't change the territory, but changing the brain
does change the mind. So something does not compute.
> Right.
Then the brain is NOT the map, the brain is the territory.
> Matter does not compute.
Bullshit. I have absolutely no trouble in providing examples of
matter computing, but whenever I ask you for an example
of computations being made without the use of matter that obeys the
laws of physics all I get is some reference to a book about
Robinson arithmetic. And no book, regardless of how thick it
is, can even calculate 2+2.
And by the way, you also need to tell me how you intend to store
information because a book is also made of matter that obeys the
laws of physics, and so are the magnetic spots on a disk drive, and
so are a stream of photons in a fiber optic cable.
>> A mind needs calculations, calculations neen a brain,
> No. calculations exists in arithmetic.
Show me. And don't show me a book, show me one calculation that
uses nothing but arithmetic. Just show me.
> You need only assume predicate calculus, 0≠s(x),
0≠s(x) can't calculate diddly squat! Prove me wrong, start
the 0≠s(x) Computer Corporation and drive INTEL into
bankruptcy.
>> a brain needs matter that obeys the laws of physics, and
matter that obeys the laws of physics does NOT need a mind. What's
circular about that?
> It is just incoherent with respect of Mechanism.
Perhaps, but then for Bruno Marchal words have meanings that
they don't have for anyone else (for example God, religion,
theology, proof) and they seem to change from day to day, so I don't
know what "Mechanism" means today. I do know that if X is Y and Y is
Z then X is Z is not circular or incoherent.
>> Screw Aristotle, his contempt for observation stopped
science from advancing for 2000 years!
> Many will disagree.
Who, besides you?
> You have forget that science progress when people make
mistaken,
All the great scientists made mistakes from time to time, but the
scientific method eventually corrected them. Aristotle's blunder was
of a entirely different nature, if his advice were followed, if
you never checked theory against observation, errors would never
be corrected.
>> I assume that "physical" means stuff that continues to exist
even if nobody believes in it. I am certain the moon exists even if
nobody is looking at it, but I am far less certain pi would exist if
there were no intelligent beings to think about it, and Turing's non-
computable numbers (the vast majority of the Real numbers) I find
even more problematic.
> That is the Aristotelian theology
Screw Aristotle and screw theology.
> Pi can be said to exist
Can be said by who? By someone made of matter that obeys the laws
of physics.
> its defining relations can be proved in elementary arithmetic
Can be proved by who? By someone made of matter that
obeys the laws of physics.
All this has already been answered, and you did never reply to the
comments.
Here you just defend your conviction in Aristotle theology: you
believe/assume that there is a primary physical universe. Unlike your
older posts, you seem to be no more able to conceive that the
mathematical reality might be more fundamental than the physical
reality.
That explains plausibly why you want to stop at the third step of the
Universal Dovetailer Argument, as the steps which follow shows that
Digital Mechanism in cognitive science is incompatible with
materialism in the physical science. Mechanism is logically
incompatible with physicalism.
If you need matter to get the truth of 2+2=4, you should give us a
physical proof (if that exist) of that fact, and this without assuming
implicitly that 2+2=4. I am not sure why you would say "yes" to a
doctor susceptible to replace your brain by a digital brain, if
primary matter has a role in enacting your consciousness. What could
be that role?
Good luck,
Bruno
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.
