On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 4:09:24 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:07 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> My computer told me that this post has not be sent. Apology if it was >> already sent. It is an old posts, but I think it is somehow important. * > > > I'm only going to comment on about 10% of your very long post because the > other 90% is just stuff I've heard 6.02*10^23 times before about the > scientifically illiterate ancient Greeks, peepee, the Universal Dance > Association, and how I am the most religious man who ever lived. > > >>And the scientific knowledge that existed in 529 AD was about the same >>> as the the scientific knowledge that existed in 529 BC, so apparently >>> doing metaphysics with any sort of attitude is a waste of time. >> >> >> *> I think the contrary. Without the progress in theology during that >> period* [...] >> > > Progress in theology?? What's the difference between good theology and > bad theology? None that I can see. > > >> > *none of the modern mathematics, physics, computer science, would >> exist. You seem to believe that science is born at your birth. It is born >> in -500, and has evolved a lot up to 529.* >> > > There was almost no progress in science or mathematics between 100 and 529 > AD, especially in Christian Europe, the big jump had to wait for another > 900 years or so. > > > You can't experiment with invisible factors and an experiment that >>> produces invisible results verifies nothing. >> >> >> *> Visibility is Aristotle’s religion.* >> > > Meaning needs contrast and Brunospeak is not my native language so please > name something that is *NOT* a religion. I've asked you to do this before > but you never did. > > >> there is no point in worrying about consciousness until you've first >>> solved the problem of intelligence, >> >> >> *> You said yourself that consciousness is easy,* >> > > It's far TOO easy, it's so easy ANY consciousness theory will work because > there are no facts they must satisfy, and that's why every Tom Dick and > Harry on the internet is peddling their own consciousness theory. But > there are vastly fewer intelligence theoreticians on the net because that's > hard and unlike consciousness theories they can be tested. > > > Literalism is bad in religion >> > > Everything is bad in religion because religion is just bad. As Christopher > Hitchens said "religion ruins everything". > > >> If time and space are not made use of in your mystical invisible >>> timeless Turing Machine how do you go from step N to step N+1, what is the >>> relationship between the 2 steps? >> >> >> *> The transition table of the Turing machine,* >> > > A transition table never changes, thus it can't *DO* anything > > *> or The reduction in the combinators,* > > Mathematics never changes, thus it can't *DO* anything > > >> *> or A clock in the von Neumann mathematical computer* >> > > A software clock can't change without the help of physical hardware, and a > clock that can't change is not a clock. > > >> explain how a non-material Turing machine that has nothing to do with >>> time or space can be so important when time and space are so critical to >>> our intelligence and consciousness. >> >> >> > *Yes, but no primary matter needs to be invoke for this. *You point >> makes sense, but is not valid to refute the immaterialist consequence of >> mechanism. >> > > Could you please make clear your distinction between matter and primary > matter and why this distinction is important. Even if you're right and pure > mathematics can produce matter (and I can't see any way it could) it would > still be necessary for mathematics to first produce matter before > intelligence or consciousness could emerge. > > >> I can know your proof is incorrect by just asking a few very simple >>> questions about the thought experiment it is based on; such as " after >>> the experiment has been concluded what did the correct answer turn out to >>> be, Moscow or Washington?” >> >> >> *> As the answer must be confirmed by both copies, * >> > > Confirmed? What with your massive confusion with personal pronouns causes > be the existence of a personal pronoun duplicating machine you can't even > clearly state what the question is much less confirm that that the answer > was correct. > > >> *> the correct prediction was “W v M”,* >> > > You predict that the result of my coin flip experiment will turn out to be > heads or tails. I then flip the coin and it turns out to be tails. So tell > me, what have we learned from this experiment? > Absolutely positively nothing. > > > neither the Washington Man nor the Moscow man existed yesterday back >>> in Helsinki >> >> >> *> Then the H-guy died. * >> > > Yes the H-guy does not exist today, but only if you define the H-guy as > the man who was in Helsinki yesterday because today is not yesterday so > today there is no way a man can be a man in Helsinki yesterday. Of course > that would be a very very stupid was to define the H-guy, a much smarter > definition would be the H-guy today is anybody who remembers being the > H-guy yesterday. > > >> >> who exactly was supposed to make the prediction yesterday back >>> in Helsinki and just as important who exactly was the >>> prediction supposed to be about?” >> >> >> > Simple enough, and you know the answer. >> > > Yes I know the answer, you don't know. if you did you wouldn't hesitate to > tell me me but that can't be done without personal pronouns with no > referent. > > >> If *AFTER *the experiment you *STILL* don't know what the correct >>> answer should have been then it was not a experiment and only a fool would >>> keep reading more about it. >> >> >> *> That is ridiculous. If I look at a chroedinger cat, and see it alive, >> that does not imply he was alive before I look at it. Your statement here >> would contradict QM-without-collapse, if not any use of probability in >> science*. >> > > After the box is opened and the Schrodinger Cat experiment is over and > everybody packed up their equipment and went home we know what the correct > prediction of the cat's fate would have been, but after your "experiment" > is over we *STILL* don't know what the correct answer would have been. We > have learned precisely nothing from it and that is the very definition of a > failed experiment, we haven't even learned what won't work. > > John K Clark >
On two topics: On "intelligence": Having spent the 1980s and '90s in an AI lab (now AI is making another wave in its existence in the late 2010s), the only focus was intelligence, not consciousness. The goal of AI is basically that of making super-smart, or smart-enough to do things (like drive cars), zombies. We will be surrounded by a bunch of intelligent, helpful zombies soon. We may even have robots that can sit and talk with us about current events, know everything in Wikipedia, etc. How "creative" they will be is an open question. But they will not be conscious. They will be zombies. But we know that we are conscious, so we know that some sort of matter configuration is conscious. If we make such a thing, it will be the first artificial entity to get a Social Security Card. It will likely want to start posting on Twitter. On mathematics: Of course mathematics changes, because it is a type of language, and languages change. The language(s) of mathematics include things like HoTT, reformulated as a programming language (of space). An "unchangeable" mathematics is the conception of the Platonists. - pt -- 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.
