> On 20 Sep 2019, at 01:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On 9/19/2019 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Consciousness cannot be algorithmic if Mechanism is true, because it relies >> on the notion of truth, which is not just not algorithmic, but is not even >> definable. > > What does "it" refer to?
The meta-definition of consciousness in the Mechanist frame. > Consciousness being algorimthic or Mechanism? and what notion of truth does > it rely on? (not the one conditional on Mechanism being true, I hope). Not it relies on the arithmetical truth, which we cannot define, but everybody agrees on it. Then there is a great pedagogical difficulty, which is that eventually we need only the sigma_ arithmetical truth, but that very facts belongs to G* minus G (and the other coronas) and so can be asserted without risking falling in the theological trap. But the fact is that the universal dovetailing does not assume more than the truth of of one quantifier formula in arithmetic, based on a decidable (sigma_0) predicate. > >> >> Consciousness is related to the semantic of some program observing itself, >> and no program can defined its own semantic once he has enough arithmetical >> belief. > > "Related to" to is vague You know that in may papers, I make the relation clear, but it is necessarily long and not obvious. I am not sure what you want me to add here. > and whether the semantic of program observing itself and [can] be defined by > the program doesn't imply there is not such semantic that consciousness can > be "related to”. Indeed that the points. Minski said so, and it becomes a theorem with Mechanism. That means the machine will get a semantic of its own, but will not been able to convey it to other machine: that is consciousness. Truth and belief that you can’t communicate to others, and that you know that you can’t communicate to other in a purely rational way. > >> >> Sometimes “mechanism” is described as a theory in which consciousness is >> algorithmic, and that is OK for an oversimplified description of mechanism, >> but at some point we have to be more precise to avoid contradictions and >> some nonsense. > > Isn't that what you mean when you suppose that consciousness is digital. I suppose only that consciousness is preserved in a digital transformation, like mathematicians supposed that the truth their premise is preserved by the application of the inference rule, despite they can’t define the truth in general. "Consciousness is digital” does not mean anything, except as a quick short and rather misleading summary of Mechanism. The arithmetical truth bears on digital relation, but can be shown to be a highly not digital notion. It requires analytical truth to be described. (Of course analytical truth is even more difficult to make precise, but that does not lead top problems, except some paradoxes which help us to improve the analytical theories). Bruno > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c223fb18-08be-1017-4a62-c7abedc8c704%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/767A8300-EF7E-44B2-AEEA-4CA1F12E1CDB%40ulb.ac.be.
