On 10/1/2018 12:32 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:14:22 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 9/30/2018 7:58 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:05:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:03, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com>
wrote:
*What is a computer?*
A computer is a device that executes programs.
If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which
we can do), then these bacteria are computers.
OK. You might add “… that can execute all programs”. In any
programming language. All universal number (mathematical
computer, universal Turing machine, …) can imitate any other
universal numbers. Either by Rogers compilation theorem, or
by the usual interpretation theorems.
Bruno
I now have a next version of
*Real computationalism*
*
*
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/
<https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/>
= my "pragmatic" definition of computing.
0.1. PTLOS configurations
A configuration PTLOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) — lower case Greek letters π, λ,
τ, ο, and capital Greek letter Σ are variables that take on
concrete (particular) values — is defined:
PLTOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) designates a program π that is written in a
language λ that is transformed via a compiler/assembler τ into an
output object ο that executes in a computing substrate Σ.
(Turing-completeness is included.)
But I want to meet therein the "consciousness challenge" of
Philip Golff and Gaylen Strawson in the PLTOS framework (the
output object would be a conscious agent):
6.5. A programming language including experiential modalities
(experiential modal logic, experiential modal operators or
qualifiers) is needed to extend the picture we have of matter
[Goff] to include consciousness.
(Modal logic historically covers modalities such as
possibility/necessity, belief, time, morality, knowability [ML1
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic>], but also
self-reference [SR1
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049237X08701447>],[SR2
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/2964058>],[SR3
<https://books.google.com/books?id=oeDiBwAAQBAJ>].)
Are you trying to define consciousness into existence by assuming
modal operators for it? Or are you just trying to provide a
language for talking about it? Where is the subconscious in this
theory?
Brent
The proposal is in terms of the the PLTOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) framework:
π would be a program in a λ with experiential modalities (modal
operators).
A compiler τ (presumably a biocompiler [
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biocompiler ]) would produce a
conscious agent ο executing in some substate Σ.
The /sub/conscious of ο would be whatever else is going on in ο's
runtime not having to do with the conscious stuff, I guess. (What else
would it be?)
In human terms the subconscious is thinking that is not conscious but
controls action and becomes or produces conscious thoughts. It doesn't
include bodily housekeeping and transduction of signals.
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.
