Russell Standish wrote: >> If treasures were not hidden in the mud, they would not be treasures :-) >> > >I suspect your words came out wrong here - do you mean "A treasure >hidden by mud is still a treasure"? Which, of course I agree with.
Thanks for correcting my words. >I would be ecstatic if someone developed a working theory of >consciousness. You know that the UDA explains that matter emerge from consciousness (to say the things roughly). If by "working theory of consciousness" you mean a theory giving explicitely results on physical matter, then you will be ecstatic. If you mean a theory useful in AI, you will be disappointed. Actually my theory is rather negative for AI, it seems at first that machine will be intelligent *despite* humans. >I don't think the time here is too mysterious. All one needs is a one >dimensional parameter t, so one can write down an evolution >equation. A differential equation? It could be a lot for me. This could lead us toward a new thread. I propose to come back later to the time problem. A sort of time will appear in my "machine psychology" through the Grzergorczyk formula. ------- Russell Standish wrote also: >Thanks for this extended discussion. It does help a lot, and makes >even more sense if one assumes COMP (which actually I don't, but for >the sake of argument, wil do). Thanks. My practical philophy is to accept comp as a working hypothesis and to push it to its ultimate limits. I do take the MWI aspect of realist QM as a sort of confirmation, though. >Just one further question. Is it possible for one machine to know p >and another machine to know -p? Soon "p" will be interpreted as arithmetical propositions, in which case if p is true it will be true for all machines. Bruno