On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on
consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences.
Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these
quite simple matters.
The neuro-science are based on comp. Unless you believe like
Penrose that the neuron use a non computable ability to reduce
the wave packet? is that the case? Is your theory Penrose theory?
No, I don't believe that the neuron 'reduces the wave function'.
But your claim that the neurosicences are based on comp is
something of an overreach. The neurosciences are based on the
study of the physical brain. Like most scientists, they do not
have any particular metaphysical prejudices, and those that they
do have seldom get in the way of their science.
So they use comp by default, except Penrose. Comp is a weak and
general hypothesis, given that if we except the wave collapse, we
don't know in nature any process which is not Turing emulable. Some
believe that with a black hole we might be able to implement non-
computational stuff, but it is far fetched and controversial.
You seem to be asking me to provide a detailed mechanism for the
phenomenon of consciousness. That is not my area, so I do not feel
myself under any obligation to provide such a mechanistic account.
I was asking for a non mechanist account as you are the one saying
that comp is false.
I do feel, however, that I have the reciprocal right to ask you to
produce the fortran program that instantiates your personal
consciousness. You claim that it exists, so why not produce it?
The UD does it. I wrote it in Lisp.
But you only assume it instantiates your consciousness because it
instantiates all possible Turing computations. So it's validation
of your theory depends on assuming your theory.
But I am not defending the idea that comp is true at all.
I was obviously assuming comp.
I work in that theory. You know that since the start. I tell only
consequence of that theory.
I only show the problem (UDA), and the machine's solution (AUDA),
which I compare to the human solution (the Plato-type one, and the
Aristotle type one).
I think you made a sort of straw man thing here.
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.
