On 29 May 2015 at 06:13, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 28 May 2015, at 14:53, LizR wrote: > > On 28 May 2015 at 22:03, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> LizR wrote: >> >>> On 26 May 2015 at 16:59, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>> >>> LizR wrote: >>> >>> On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com >>> >>> 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. This does not mean that consciousness is a >>> computation, in Platonia or anywhere else. >>> I may have been too hasty. Comp ("comp1") is the theory that it's the >>> /outcome/ of a computation, at some level. >>> All that we know from the evidence is that consciousness supervenes >>> on physical brains. >>> >>> We don't actually know this, although the evidence appears to suggest it. >>> >> >> On that basis we don't ever know anything! > > > Are you sure :-) > > >> That might well be the case, but science does not operate on such >> impossible certainties. We have a working hypothesis that consciousness >> supervenes on the physical brain. So far all the evidence supports this >> hypothesis, and there is no evidence to the contrary. That is good enough >> for the scientist in me. >> > > OK, but scientists are I believe generally agreed that we don't know > anything, we only have models, theories etc. > > Of course mathematicians may beg to differ. > > Are you buying Deustch's wrong idea that mathematicians are not scientists? >
Not really, but I think most people consider them something different. It is my opinion that mathematicians *are* scientists, in that they make discoveries. Hence their discoveries should be subject to refutation as more evidence becomes available. (But some mathematicians would I think dispute that, claiming that their field is exempt from the usual scientific process). > > Even theologians, when they practice with the scientific attitude, agree > that we don't know anything, and have only experiences, theories and > interpretations of theories. We bet on a reality when we have faith, but > that bet is always personal, and not part of science. But it can be part of > the art of medicine, ... > > Then we agree, because that's more or less what I was saying to Bruce, in reply to his claim that "All that we know from the evidence is that consciousness supervenes on physical brains" -- 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.
