On 08 May 2017, at 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/05/2017 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic,
according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of
perception and physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are
entailed by arithmetic and so should be independent of tequila.
That does not follow. Even Robinso Arithmetic can prove that a
machine drinking some amount of tequila will prove anything.
That would be impressive. Is this proof published?
It is trivial. RA computes all states reaction in all
computational histories. RA is a universal dovetailer, to be
short. In the simulation of tequila + brain, people get drunk.
That's what I was afraid of. Your theory successfully predicts it
because it predicts "everything", including people drink tequila
and don't get drunk.
But that fact is confirmed by our best current empirically derived
theory: quantum mechanics.
QM also predicts ""everything", including people drink tequila
and don't get drunk".
But QM has a well-defined measure over these possibilities, given by
the Born Rule acting on the appropriate wave function. That theory
predicts that the probability that people can drink substantial
quantities of alcohol and not get drunk is vanishingly small.
Computationalism has no comparable measure that would give the
observed relative probabilities.
But physics does not even address the measure problem on the first
person experience made possible when we assume computationalism. It
works, but only by speculating on a non-computationalist theory.
And I give the means to compare the measure, so let do the test,
and encourage people to pursue the study of the "material
hypostases".
First derive your measure (without assuming physical laws), then we
can do the empirical testing.
The measure one has been derived, and has succeeded the first test: it
is a quantum logic, both for qualia and quanta. With physicalism,
there are no qualia, so it fails. It works on quanta only.
That we get the quantum logic for the measure one is already extra-
ordinary, and it is "just" a question of more work to get the physics.
We must "just "compare if people get less or more drunk in the
physical reality than in arithmetic, so to speak.
I think we first have to establish that there are entities
recognizable as "people" in arithmetic. Viz., that conscious moments
are not just isolated events in a sea of white noise.
With computationalism, an observer moment is never isolated. "Observer-
moment" can only mean: brought by a universal number through a
computation. We need only to extract a notion of "normality", and we
have it already by finding a logic of probability, even one with a
canonical quantization, and we got it. Keep in mind we try to solve
the mind-body problem in the context of a precise hypothesis. We are
not competing for the best science to do prediction, but for the best
science which does not eliminate consciousness.
bruno
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 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.
