On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
<mailto:allco...@gmail.com>>:
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
<mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
<mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works
And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything
to do
with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time?
I don't, and I didn't say that. What I said if only you could read, is that
what
could render computationalism false is iff consciousness depends on a
non-computable
feature of reality whatever it is (and of course unknown to us for the
moment). NP
hard or complete are not a problem, because NP problem *are* computable.
You just
affirm that nothing in the reality is non-computable, and that
consciousness is a
computational process... I don't know it, I think it is the most
probable... that
doesn't render it true... but for it to be false, it requires some aspect of
consciousness to be non-computable.
For your information such "non-computable" feature could be "primitive" matter, as Peter
Jones liked to point out... "primitive" matter to be understood as what renders
something real (as opposed to something that doesn't exist)... positing "primitive"
matter in that sense would prevent consciousness to be only a computational object, by
requiring it to be implemented in (primitive) matter, as such differentiating abstract
computations as not real, non existant, and matter implemented computations as real...
that also means that all of math per se is inexistant, only math currently implemented
in matter is real... that's what Bruno calls an ad-hoc move to save materialism and
computationalism.
Any theory that bottoms out is going to appear "ad-hoc" in starting from that primitive.
Bruno's theory bottoms out on Church-Turing computation. It seems to have an advantage
over matter based theories because he thinks he can identify belief with provability while
claiming that matter based theories can't include belief. I think the latter is doubtful,
although I don't know of a fully worked out theory. That's part of the reason I don't
accept his argument as conclusive.
Brent
--
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.
