On 04 Aug 2016, at 03:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/3/2016 5:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3 August 2016 at 16:02, Brent Meeker <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.
Not correct. By the (step 7) global FPI on the (sigma-1) arithmetic,
we have to extract physics from the statistics on *all* computations
(universal number in activity).
That is the key, making mechanism testable. It is not a theory of
mine, it is a problem in a well accepted theory. It works on machines
+ oracles too.
The problem I have with this is that "arithmetic is true" doesn't
make anything, much less a UDA, exist.
UDA is my Argument.
Use UD for the Universal Dovetailer program, and UD* for its
execution, in a physical universe (step 7), or in the sigma_1
arithmetic (step 8).
Step 8 is not the proof that arithmetic generate and run UD* (which is
an easy exercise in introductory book in the domain), but is the
explanation why assuming the physical cannot help in the mind-body
problem once we assume digital mechanism.
I only show that with digital mechanism, we can take the mind-body
problem back from under the rug.
It is not yet solved, although the math solves apparently the
propositional part of the problem, we could say. UDA is not a theory,
it is the enunciation of a problem, which we tend to abstract from
since we have given the theological science to the politics, roughly
speaking.
We would have evidence that the logic of the observable is boolean,
and not quantum, then classical computationalism would be in trouble.
And the conclusion (3) just brings in Everett's measure problem
amplified to the nth degree.
Exactly. But the math shows already that the "explosion of 1p-
realities" is pretty well confined.
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.
Yes, but that was a lightening in my young time. The work is what has
been done by Gödel, Löb, Solovay, ... and also Post, Turing, Church,
and many others, and which has made possible to see the shape of the
(neopythagorean) solution (that has been 30 years of work). UDA is the
enunciation of the problem, and AUDA is the translation of the problem
in the language of the Löbian numbers, and what they can already
answer, or more aptly what we can already listen.
I am just serious on the mind-body problem, in the mechanist frame.
Only devoted super-bigot christian fundamentalist atheists have a
problem, and perhaps even only those molesting the children in secret
(that is the difference between the temple and the church, the church
molests the kids publicly, the temple molest the kids secretly).
Then it is obvious that when you see how hard it is for people to get
that the danger of cannabis are lies (despite they are only 75 years
old, and are rather gross), you can imagine that about the 'Glass of
Milk', it will take time to recover from the 1500 years of lies, and
superstition, wishful thinking, etc.
As things are going, it looks like we try to prepare another
millennium of obscurantism.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
