On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/9/2014 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Feb 2014, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/8/2014 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a
necessary side effect of intelligence. But I don't follow this:
it is a phenomena having some role, I would say, and so
evolution is just not a problem.
To say it has some role implies that there is a role apart from
the physics and the intelligent behavior. If it's a *necessary*
aspect of intelligence then it makes no sense to talk about it
having a role - its "role" is just another way of talking about
the intelligence.
I begin to suspect that this way of talking is a confusion
between provability (G) and truth (G*).
And that remark makes me think you are confusing mathematical
necessity with nomological necessity.
"mathematical necessity" is quite vague, but I can accept it is
approximated by G*. It is of course theory-related, and assume
classical mathematical theories.
"nomological necessity" will be given by Z1* (or S4Grz1, or X1*).
At the start we are agnostic about Nature, primitve matter, and
thus nomological necessity. Then it is explained by the
way we recover nature from the FPI on UD* or arithmetic.
Why aren't we agnostic about arithmetic?
That is a mystery. That is part of what machines and numbers will
never explain.
Where's John Mikes?
So you might be right, but only in God's eye. Like the lawyer
might be right: the murderer just obeyed to the laws of physics
or arithmetic.
But this does not mean that free-will or responsibility, and a
role for consciousness or conscience, do not exist, as we don't
live at the G* level.
Sure. And we don't live at the elementary particle level either,
so we talk about tables and chairs and people, even if
we think they're made of quarks, electrons, and photons.
The lawyer defense will not work, because the jury can decide for
any punishment, and invoke that, them too, are only following the
laws of physics or arithmetic, and "following laws" become an
empty mantra, despite being true at some level.
G* proves epiphenomenalism ([]p & p is equivalent with []p for
all arithmetical p), but G, which represents the actual machine,
cannot prove that equivalence, and becomes inconsistent if it
assumes it.
But can we prove the equivalence in the sense that physics proves
that atoms exist, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.
Physics provides only evidences and proves nothing about reality.
Neither does logic or mathematics.
Of course.
They only prove that some theorems follow from some assumed axioms.
Yes.
Doubly so for comp, as it explains why it needs a quasi explicit act
of faith to be applied in "reality" (to say "yes" to the doctor, to
choose the subst-level, etc.). This is reflected in the Solovay
splitting G/G*, or x/x* with x intensional or modal variants of G.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
