On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.?
This is more or less planned for the FOAR list.
In a nutshell, using some image, comp says that the "big truth (about
consciousness and matter)" is in your head. With "you" = any universal
machine.
So you can program a universal machine to look inward, and extract its
theory of consciousness and matter.
To test comp, it remains to compare the matter part the machine found
in her head with the empirical facts.
This has been done, to some degree, and thanks to QM, it fits rather
well up to now.
That is does comp predict something that is not also predicted by
science?
?
Comp is part of science. It is a theory (synonym: belief, hypothesis,
guess, idea, etc.).
Physical science, seen as TOE, like with physicalism, presupposes a
physical reality, but if comp is correct, the physical reality is a
stable pattern emerging from coherence conditions in machines' self-
reference, and this is reducible to number theory, or to any theory
rich enough to emulate a Turing universal machine.
What comes to my mind is consciousness.
Comp starts from some assumption on consciousness, (like its
invariance for digital substitution *at some level*), and then it is
later plausibly explained in term of some truth that some machine can
"know" in some sense, yet not prove or justify to other machine.
Bruno
Richard
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural
world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena.
Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so
(and in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a level of
digital substitution.
I think you will not convince Craig, because he assumes from the
start mind and matter and some relation/identification between them,
in a non computational framework. But you are right, and patient, by
showing him that he is not valid when arguing that comp *has to* be
wrong.
Bruno
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
