> On 16 Jun 2019, at 15:02, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:20:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Jun 2019, at 18:00, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> But while I know what Turing Machines are, I still don't know what >> "Mechanism"s are. > > John Clark just use ‘a mechanism” where I use “a machine”. I keep the word > “mechanism” for the YD + CT assumption/theory/hypothesis. It is my working > hypothesis. > > Bruno > > > > If "YD + CT" (What is "YD"?) is Turing Machine + Universal Dovetailer (TM+UD) > I think I know what that is.
CT is Church’s thesis, and YD is for “Yes Doctor”, to sum up the definition I use for “Indexcail Digital Mechanism”, which is the hypothesis that there exists a level of description of my brain such that I would survive, or see no change, if little daemons, or a doctor, substitute the componant of my brain at that level with digital physical elements. It is like saying yes” to a doctor for an artificial digital brain transplant. The existence of the universal dovetailer is a “simple” theorem in elementary arithmetic. > > UD is the power of PTM (Persistent Turing Machine) or RTM (Reactive Turing > Machine) I think. > > PTM: > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225181994_Persistent_Turing_Machines_as_a_Model_of_Interactive_Computation > > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225181994_Persistent_Turing_Machines_as_a_Model_of_Interactive_Computation> > RTM: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540113000874 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540113000874> > > But if consciousness requires more than TM+UD (TM+PTM, or TM+RTM), then how > can a mere Mechanism (TM, or TM+UD) replace a brain? By definition of “Mechanism", a “mere” mechanism works in virtue of simulating correctly your brain at some relevant level of description. Then if you define consciousness by something which is, for a conscious entity - true - felt as immediately true, - felt as indubitable, - non rationally provable or justifiable, - non definable without invoking the notion of truth, then, it is a theorem in slight extensions of Peano arithmetic that Peano arithmetic is conscious, and indeed aware of the communicable, and non communicable part of its theology. It is a theology in the original sense of the greek (theory of Everything, or theory of Gods, God and Man), so it contains physics and cosmogony as subbranch, so we can test the mechanist hypothesis (modulo Boström-like malevolent simulation, to be exact). Mechanism, like the Gödel sentence, entails its own non provability, and in the theology of the machine, anyone claiming to know his/her, or your’s, substitution level is a con artist (or a malevolent god). Bruno > > @philiprhrift > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12cc17fe-d50b-4f01-a92b-1587d11ab4b9%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12cc17fe-d50b-4f01-a92b-1587d11ab4b9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/02E890C4-BCBA-49AF-ABC9-EBF1C94CEA66%40ulb.ac.be.
