On 26 May 2015, at 22:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2015 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2015, at 06:59, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
Of that I have no opinion because nobody knows what "comp" means,
least of all Bruno. Comp is the theory that consciousness is
the product of Turing-emulable processes, i.e. that it's a
computation.
Actually, that strictly does not follow. All that follows is that
a computer can emulate certain physical processes upon which
consciousness supervenes.
In which theory?
This does not mean that consciousness is a computation, in
Platonia or anywhere else. All that we know from the evidence is
that consciousness supervenes on physical brains.
Assuming the primitive existence of the physical brain.
That is NOT assumed. All that is *hypothesized* is that
consciousness supervenes on a physical brain. No one said it was
"primitive" or "fundamental" nor is that relevant. If you can show
that the physical brain is a consequence of arithmetic, then you
will accomplished a great feat. But it will still be the case that
consciousness supervenes on that brain.
That is why I asked "in which theory". You are right, but this
conerned the human consciousness. Then what you say is part of the
definition of comp.
But there is no evidence for that. It is a strong extrapolation,
and it failed (since 1500 years) to account for the existence of
consciousness. That is why the mind-body problem is not yet solved.
And what is nice with comp, is that not only computer science does
offer a theory of mind and consciousness, but it explains
conceptually the origin of the physical appearances from elementary
arithmetic (and this in a testable way).
But it doesn't. It just says that given comp1, and that comp2 is
entailed by comp1, there must be such an explanation. It's like
saying if God created the universe then there's an explanation for
why it's the way it is: God wanted it that way.
Yes, it is like that, but with less fuzzy notions leading to testable
consequences. We cannot test God's willingness, but we can compare the
comp logic of the observable with the logic inferred from the
observation of nature. The boolean Newtonian physics is refuted, and
the quantum logic is vindicated.
Bruno
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.
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/d/optout.
