On 8/3/2016 5:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3 August 2016 at 16:02, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 8/2/2016 10:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 8/2/2016 3:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 8/2/2016 6:15 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
It's not that it can't, but rather that it doesn't,
and if it does then that would require some extra
physical explanation, a radio link between brains or
something.
That's what I mean by illegitimately appealing to
physics while claiming that physics must be derived from
computation of consciousness.
Whatever theory we propose must be consistent with observation.
But, "if it does then*/that would require some extra physical
explanation/*, a radio link between brains or something." Is
not an observation, it's an assumption that all information
transfer must be physical.
There is no convincing evidence for telepathic communication, so
a theory that predicts it should occur would have to explain why
we don't observe it.
Yes, and physical theories of consciousness do that quite well.
But computationalist theories of consciousness can't invoke the
physics they're trying to derive.
Bruno, I believe, proposes that his theory accounts for the universe
that we observe.
ISTM his argument is of the form:
1) Consciousness is instantiated by certain computation.
2) All possible computation is realized by a UDA that exists because
arithmetic is true.
3) Then the conscious thoughts that constitute our experience of a
physical world are among those instantiated by the UDA and the physical
world need not be anything more than threads of those computations that
exhibit the consistent patterns which we explain as an external reality.
The problem I have with this is that "arithmetic is true" doesn't make
anything, much less a UDA, exist. And the conclusion (3) just brings in
Everett's measure problem amplified to the nth degree. It explains too
much as "existing" and doesn't assign probabilities to anything. So far
as I can tell Bruno is just relying on 1-3 as a "proof" that the physics
we observe MUST BE derived from the UDA.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
