2015-10-13 13:44 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>:
> On 13/10/2015 10:14 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2015-10-13 13:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: > >> On 13/10/2015 9:54 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-10-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: >> >>> On 13/10/2015 7:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Bruce Kellett < <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> >>>> On 13/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>>> The double-slit experiment is evidence of platonic computation being >>>>> responsible for our consciousness, along with many other properties seen >>>>> in >>>>> physics. >>>>> >>>> Come again? How on earth do you make that out? The double slit >>>> experiment is evidence for quantum superpositions of waves and/or >>>> particles. Nothing to do with consciousness. As for the rest of >>>> physics?????? >>>> >>>> The theory has survived numerous tests, without being disproven, which >>>>> is all we can hope for as evidence for any theory. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Quantum mechanics is a well-tested theory. Computationalism is not. >>>> Computationalism can't even get the basic physics right, much less explain >>>> how the universe came to exist long before consciousness emerged. >>> >>> >>> Computationalism is the theory that a computer could simulate not only >>> the brain's behaviour, but also consciousness. It is possible that the >>> brain utilises non-computable physics, in which case computationalism would >>> be false. Is that what you believe? >>> >>> >>> You present a false dichotomy. The brain might well be Turing emulable, >>> and computationalism false. That would be the case if matter is primary and >>> arithmetic merely a formal game. >>> >>> >> Then it's not computationalism... but materialism, as computation is not >> a material notion... >> >> >> I did say that computationalism could be false.... >> >> You have to say then that computation is just an abstract representation >> of the real thing (aka matter doing thing looking at if it was a >> computation)... then you is not "just" a computation... "you" is matter >> which behaves like a computation. >> >> >> Sounds reasonable to me. >> >> Matter as primary entity is thus needed... and the brain would not be >> turing emulable per se. >> >> >> That does not follow. >> > > It does as turing emulability is a mathematical notion, it does not > involve matter, so if matter is needed, then you have something more than > turing emulability alone, you need matter. > > A computer made of silicon can emulate a Turing machine. A brain made of > wetware can be emulated by a silicon computer, or a Turing machine. The > fact that a Turing machine can be define mathematically is entirely > secondary. > The fact that a computer made of matter can emulate a Turing machine is because we have a definition of a turing machine which is a mathematical concept... but if you reject the mathematical definition, I wonder how you can say that a "computer" emulate a turing machine... You should first define computation in terms of matter, and shows that the "mathematical" game is coincidentally like it. > > Also I wonder how you could justify with such theory the equivalence > between two computations... if not by using abstract computation theory to > justify it... > > Two computations are equivalent if they give the same answers. > > How do you justify it ? I can easily write an emulator of another machine > and justify the correct functionning by logic alone, no matter involve... > so if logic is just a game, and matter is the end point, algorithm *can't* > be used as justification of the correct working. > > > Who said matter was the end point? > You... why do you insist on matter, if it is not primary and can be made of something else ? > I can justify the equivalence of two computations by pointing to the fact > that they give the same numerical output. > Then you say it only if you have achieved all possible outputs ? because you can't use mathematical induction to justify they will on the same domain. > Computations might be definable in terms of algorithms, but more than one > algorithm can give the same computation -- give the same result for the > given input. > Yes, an infinity of them... but that's a mathematical result... no matter is used in the reasoning . > > > Bruce > > -- > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
