On 30 Apr 2017, at 20:35, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/30/2017 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physicalists talk about emergence from complex
interactions of matter. I remain baffled and ask you the same
question
that I ask physicalists: what is the first principle from where
consciousness arises?
Truth. That cannot be a mathematical construct (provably so if
computationalism is true). It is not 3p definable.
The whole key is in the theorem that ([]p & p) does not admit a
predicate definable to any machine from which "[]p & p" is
(meta)defined.
But what relevance does that have for the correspondence theory of
truth?
It limits itself where it is obvious, the experience, like when the
ring bells.
It attaches, at the metalevel, the representable 3p machine/belief/
formula []p to the truth, p, by definition.
It is an interpretation, in terms of (relatively to the arithmetical
truth) of the correspondence theory of truth.
It avoids reductionism because no machine, nor even machine + powerful
oracles, can know their own "[]", and, provably so, cannot define the
truth once it encompass its "correct" 3p level.
It associate a knower to the machine who, like any soul, will not been
able to believe he is a 3p object (and rightly so, actually (accepting
to define it by the conjunction of truth, and rationally finitely
representable/believable).
Socrates does not really refute Theaetetus idea, he points on defects,
which indeed belongs to the price of Universality (in the Post,
Kleene, Turing, Church sense).
With simple, yet rich enough to prove their own universality, machine,
we get a non trivial "knower", whose knowabiliy logic is (meta)
described by S4 + the gift: Grz.
If you agree that the soul is the (first person) knower, then self-
referentially correct machine have a soul, which already disbelieve in
computationalism, she says "no" to the doctor, and once she conceive
its own "G*" might justify the "yes" at some level, she can know it is
not necessary (but that it is a blaspheme to say so, also (unless
preceded by reminding the assumptions).
====
On 4/30/2017 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am inclined to think that consciousness = existence. Perhaps it's
such a simple and fundamental thing that it becomes almost
impossible
to talk about it.
Consciousness is the 1p feeling that there is something real. I am
not sure why consciousness would be existence. There are things
which exists and are not conscious.
Consciousness is more what we need to give meaning to word like
"meaning". It is on the semantical side, like truth.
These questions are not so mysterious if you ask, "How will I make
my Mar Rover able to learn and behave intelligently." Then you see
that it must be able to run simulations which include a Mars Rover,
one with same goals as itself.
I agree, it is easy in that sense. The theory just says that RA is
maximally conscious, in that case. Mars Rover is probably in between
RA and PA /ZF/Humans. Mars Rover's consciousness is probably still
very dissociated from its wandering, as I am not sure It has enough
short term memories to distract enough its consciousness and get its
attention and mind toward a local indexical theory. Mars Rover has
probably not a standard theory of Mars and humans, the consciousness
flux can differentiate in still very different sort of qualia, in
fine, it will be up to Mars Rover to fight for her/its/his right.
It is almost a matter of convention to decide when the soul falls in
the delusion. Maybe PA is already more deluded than RA. Nelson thinks
so, but most people agree on the first order axioms of induction. The
least known Löbian machine has a so weak scheme of induction axioms
(only on sigma_0 formula) that, to be Löbian, you need to add the
exponentiation axioms. Smorynski limits himself to a sort of RA + the
axioms of induction on the Sigma_1 formula, that gives Löbianity.
Humans are that, at some level, but have non-monotonical super layers,
where they can handle local contradictions, and can revise (eliminate)
axioms. To extract the core of the physical appearance we need only
the correct (in the mathematical sense) machines.
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.
