On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> In some post you have acknowledge that consciousness is not something > located in a brain. > I don't even know what the location of a consciousness even means. > Two identical brains in different space-time locations will determine > (assuming computationalism, c, hereafter to be short) the same > consciousness. > Agreed. > A universal machine cannot distinguish a "physical reality" (and what > that means?) > I don't know what that means. > from an arithmetical reality, > Agreed. > > so the consciousness (the token consciousness "here and now" of someone) > is related to all number relations defining a genuine computation > Well... consciousness certainly has something to do with relationships, but whether it's a relationship between numbers or between something else I'm not sure. Numbers can describe a relationship between many different types of things, but to produce consciousness it could be that the relationship must be between matter, in particular between neurons or their electronic counterpart. The fact that a computer program printed on a paper and sitting in a desk drawer can't do anything until it is implemented in a certain arrangement of matter that we call a "computer" makes me think that this may be the case. > Aristotle makes the inevitable errors of the pionniers, > Aristotle made the errors of a fool, not only did he think he was too good to perform experiments he didn’t even realize that some of his ideas, like the one about heavy objects falling faster than light ones, led to a logical contradiction. It’s hard to think of one his theories that was even approximately true and today physics would be more advanced than it is if Aristotle had never been born. > and get corrected on the physical level, not on the metaphysical level > Being a metaphysician is easy, being a good physicist is not. >> As Niels Bohr, the greatest physicist of the 20th century after Einstein, >> > > > You astonish me. I would reserve my judgment on a guy who refuse to even > talk with Everett > That was around 1960 when Bohr was a old man, his most important work was done between 1910 and 1930. > I think the quantum wave collapse is nonsense. > Forget its collapse, without Bohr we wouldn’t even know about the quantum wave; although his name wasn’t on the original paper Bohr was without a doubt the greatest teacher of quantum mechanics who ever lived and he was extraordinarily generous in giving away his good ideas to his students. > You don't like Aristotle, but for a Platonist QM is rather natural, if > not obvious. > Then why didn’t Plato discover Quantum Mechanics 2500 years ago? Because no sane person would propose such a crazy idea if they weren’t forced to do so by the crazy outcome of certain experiments. John K Clark > > > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
