Re: Artificial Philosophizing

From: Quentin Anciaux <>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:17:05 +0100

Le Mercredi 8 Février 2006 10:41, Russell Standish a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:34:22PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > To the list,
> >
> > I don't understand how some of you accept the term "we are machine" and
> > not "we are digitalisable at some level and hence emulable at that
> > level", could someone enlight me on this apparent contradiction ?
> >
> > Quentin
> Machine means more than Turing machine. For example, I would count a
> Geiger counter connected to a radioactive source as a machine, yet no
> Turing machine can reproduce its pattern of clicks.
> "We are machine" simply means to me that there is no immaterial soul
> breathing life into our bodies - we are ultimately 100% material.
> Cheers


we (as observer) perceive at any given time a finite amount of information...
so what you could know (still as an observer of a system) is finite, hence
digitalisable at the level of information that you could know about the
object, so I don't see why a radioactive source and the click pattern on a
geiger counter cannot be simulated... You could object randomness, but
generating (and executing) all program by the UD will generate all "random"
string as well.

Received on Wed Feb 08 2006 - 14:19:23 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST