On 3/12/2010 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2010, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2010 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see how we could use Tononi's paper to provide a physical
or a computational role to inactive device in the actual
supervenience of a an actual computation currently not using that
device.
I'm not sure I understand that question. It seems to turn on what is
meant by "using that device". Is my brain using a neuron that isn't
firing? I'd say yes, it is part of the system and it's not firing is
significant.
Two old guys A and B decide to buy each one a car. They bought
identical cars, and paid the same price.
But B's car has a defect, above 90 mi/h the engine explode. But both
A and B will peacefully enjoy driving their car all the rest of their
life. They were old, and never go quicker than 60 mi/h until they
die. Would you say that A's car was driving but that B's car was only
partially driving.
If I'm a multiple-worlder I'd say B's car is driving with a lower
probability than A's.
Why? The QM many worlds entails that he is old in the normal worlds, and
he will keep going less than 60mi/h there too.
In some worlds his car is a Toyota.
Only in Harry-Potter
worlds, where energy push him beyond that limit due to quantum incident
accumulation.
What about a brain with clever neurons. For example the neurons N24
anticipates that he will be useless for the next ten minutes, which
gives him the time to make a pause cafe and to talk with some glial
cells friends. Then after ten minutes he come back and do very well
its job. Would that brain be less conscious? He did not miss any
messages.
Same answer.
But this can only confirms that you put some magic in the presence of
matter. If matter plays that role, by comp it just needs we have to
"actively" emulate those inactive piece of matter, which by definition,
where not inactive then.
If inactive piece are needed, what about inactive soft subroutine? Then
I have to ask the doctor if the program he will put in my brain
evaluated in the lazy way, or strictly, or by value. Again, by
definition of comp, this is a matter of finding the right level, then
any implementation will do, any universal system will do. And the uda
consequences follows.
Tp prevent the contagion of the immateriality of the person to its
environment, you can only introduce actual infinities in the local
working of consciousness.
QM does introduce "infinites" since it assumes real values probabilities.
But then you can no more say "yes" to the
digitalist surgeon based on the comp assumption.
Only if the digitalist surgeon has a magically classical digital brain
at his disposal...or if I insist on probability 1 success.
This is like making a
current theory more complex to avoid a simpler theory.
Your move looks like the move of a superstitious boss who want all its
employees present all days, even when they have nothing to do. Molecular
biology shows that in the cells, the proteins which have no functions
are quickly destroyed so that its atoms are recycled, and they are
"called by need", and reconstituted only when they are useful.
I'm just taking seriously the Everett interpretation. Since we don't
know what consciousness is, we can as well suppose it supervenes on the
ray in Hilbert space as on the projection to our classical subspace. I
haven't added anything to the ontology.
The significance of the neuron (firing or not firing) is
computational. If for the precise computation C the neuron n is not
used in the interval of time (t1 t2), you may replace it by a
functionally equivalent machine for the working in that time interval.
There is no problem
Well, there's not *that* problem.
? The point is that if you accept that non active part can be removed,
then the movie graph expains how your immateriality extends to a sheaf
of computational histories (that is really true-and-provable number
relations) going through you.
It is like darwin: it gives a realm (numbers, combinators, ... choose
your favorite base) in which we can explain how the laws of physics
appeared and evolved: not in a space-time, but in a logical space (that
each Löbian number can discover "in its head").
I'll be more impressed when we can explain why *this* law rather than
*that* law evolved and why there are "laws" (intersubjective agreements)
at all.
And the G/G* separation extends on the quanta (SGrz1, X1, Z1) giving the
qualia (S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*).
I tend to work at a more general, or abstract level, and I think that
consciousness needs some amount of self-reflection, two universal
machines in front of each other, at least. If Mars Rover can add and
multiply it may have the consciousness of Robinson Arithmetic. If
Mars Rover believe in enough arithmetical induction rules, it can
quickly be trivially Löbian. But its consciousness will develop when
he identifies genuinely and privately itself with its unameable first
person (Bp & p). Using Bp for public science and opinions. It will
build a memorable and unique self-experience.
To be clear, Mars Rover may still be largely behind the fruit fly in
matter of consciousness. The fruit fly seems capable to appreciate
wine, for example. Mars Rover is still too much an infant, it wants
only satisfy its mother company, not yet itself.
But it also doesn't conceive of "itself" and "its mother company" -
only it's mission.
Our universal machine are brainwashed at their birth (take this "cum
grano salis").
I think the interesting point is that the two may have incommensurable
consciousness; they may be "conscious" of different things in
different ways.
Most probably. In any case, neither the body of the fruit fly, nor the
body of Mars Rover can think, because Bodies don't think. Persons,
intellect or souls, can think. Bodies are projection of their mind on
their distribution in the universal dovetailing (or the tiny equivalent
arithmetical Sigma_1 truth).
I think that means "inferred components of their model of the world" -
with which I would agree.
If your theory assume a physical primary substance, it is up to you to
explain its role in consciousness.
Its role in consciousness is to realize the processes that are
consciousness. Of course that leaves open the question of which
processes do that - to which Tononi has give a possible answer.
But MGA forces that move to invoke
actual infinities and non turing emulable aspects of the (generalized)
brain.
It forces me to invoke a non-turing emulable world; but I think any
finite part can still be turing-emulable to a given fidelity < 1.
But I'm not here to be an advocate for primary matter (Peter Jones does
that well enough). I neither accept nor reject these theories. I just
consider them as best I can.
On the contrary, assuming comp, we get a very simple theory of
everything (elementary arithmetic), and a less simple phenomenological
account of consciousness and matter, in the way universal numbers
reflects themselves.
Simple to you maybe. :-) Seems very difficult (for me) to get any
specific answers out of it.
Brent
But this follows and used only elementary
arithmetic. Like with Everett, the intended truth behind the formalism
(sigma_1 arithmetical truth) generates its (many) internal
interpretations, in term of machine discourses and what those discourses
are about (persons, lifes, death, taxes, etc.).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
