> >My feeling, Gilles, is that you have an excellent understanding of my >point. Now, for some reason you don't believe in comp, and for that >reason, you take my counter-intuitive result as an opportunity to throw >away >the comp hypothesis.
Indeed I think we agree on what is the key point. Let me precise my position with respect to comp: I indeed think that conscious properties are related to computational properties. What I try to argue is 1) that this computation can not be duplicated like an ordinary software like "Word6", because it is completely embedded (i.e. constantly in interaction with) an environment, and that, contrary to what is sometimes stated, a proper REAL simulation of the external Universe is impossible with a machine embedded in this very Universe. 2) that our notion of identity is NOT based on the computational identity but on the physical one (based on the apparent physical continuity of classical worlds through a time ordering), the computational continuity being just a secondary consequence of the physical one. In particular our own computational properties are constantly changing with time due to our increasing experience, although we consider that we are the same individual. So you have in fact to POSTULATE that the physical reality is identical to its computation, before arriving to this conclusion. This postulate is acceptable, but it is really interesting only if it produces non trivial results, for example demonstrating m(C)>>m(B).... >Honestly that is a little too premature for me. >But I'm very glad you realise the bonus: an explanation of the origin of >physical laws. >But indeed, with comp (which is admitted by numerous people including >Schmidhuber, Deutsch, all cognitive scientist, etc.) we must justify >why m(C) >> m(B). >I don't pretend it is easy. I feel it worthwhile. I am not working in this field, but you should admit that the "cognitive scientists" have failed up to now to build a machine showing the slightest evidence of consciousness, and to explain it properly by human people. They may have missed something.... Cheers Gilles
