On 4/15/2018 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either. You start
by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness.
You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes
mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a digital brain
prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add magic in the brain).
This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, computers, etc.
But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”,
But the very assumption that there is "thought experience" in arithmetic is added
"magic" to the computation of arithmetic.
That is not magic. That follows from Mechanism. If you believe that the
universal machine emulated by the arithmetical reality are not conscious, you
get inconsistent with the assumption that we can survive with an an artificial
digital brain,
No. You are just adding the magic the mathematics to the computation
alone instead of adding it to the physical realization of the computation.
and also, you get something weird in arithmetic itself, like zombies having
this very conversation. This is not obvious, that is why I give the detailed
proof in the thesis and paper. You are the one invoking a primary matter
No, I'm invoking matter (not primary) as something to realize the
computation.
Brent
than nobody can even define, and use it to criticise a theory which just do not
make that assumption. Your critics is equivalent as criticising Darwin
evolution theory because it does not explains the content of the bible.
Bruno
Brent
which means limiting the statements on the semi-computable propositions (the
sigma_1 sentences) and looking at all the platonic nuances enforced by
incompleteness.
Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, known,
undoubtable, yet non definable, and non provable, then those nuances shows
that a machine which looks inward does met notion pertaining on itself obeying
that semi-axiomatic definition, like the machine meets a notion of matter,
which obeys quantum logic, and has to give a measure on them. (Assuming here
both QM is correct, and that we are not in a normal malevolent simulation, to
be exact).
--
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.
--
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.
