Le 26-mai-05, à 00:24, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :

I am also an arithmetical Platonist, but where we differ is our belief in
the relevance of 1st person phenomena.

Relevant or not they exist. And are in need to be explained.

I just don't see that they are
relevant to anything other than "human discourse" (ie. "How are you feeling
today? Bit of a pain in the Gulliver.")

That's not just human discourse. There is conscious life behind the discourse. It is in need to be explained, or explained away, but rigorously. I find much more easy to explain matter *away*. You posit a physical universe, I don't.

You appear to be trying to extend
qualia into a category relevant to cosmology/science/Platonia, and it is this initial step that I don't follow (mixing together Popper's Worlds I and

It is not at all an initial step. My initial step is just the question: what can a machine really prove about itself and hope, or bet, about its consistent extension.

 I agree self awareness is important for anthropic observer selection

I don't use anthropic observer selection, although some parts of what I do can be recasted in such a setting. But since about two years, I am used to avoid such talk in the list. That could be misleading when used together with the comp hyp.

but you appear to be positing a much more fundamental role for

Not at all. I accept them from empirical reasons. I expect any serious TOE to explain them, and solve the problems raised by their existence. I do not posit them. But I am glad to recover candidates for qualia in the machine's discourses.
(Actually, in the machine's silences ...)

Mais je dois admettre que je ne commence pas a comprendre votre
theorie. [But I must admit I do not begin to understand your theory (litteral translation by BM)]

Thanks for your frankness. To be honest it is not really my theory. It is the theory of any sound universal machine having enough "introspective abilities", like Peano Arithmetic, or Zermelo-fraenkel set theory, or any effective extension of them. Actually the theory is sound (but no more complete) for a vast class of "super-turing-machine). I call them Lobian machine. This is because Solovay related them to an important theorem and formula obtained by the Deutsch logican Lob (Loeb, L\"{o}b). It is an important extension of Godel's second incompleteness theorem.

Well, to be sure in my thesis there are two parts. In the first part I make the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) which (along with Olympia's stuff) just shows that if we accept the comp hyp in the cognitive science, then the mind-body problem is partially but necessarily reduced into the problem of the appearances of stable third person discourses (including talk on what is observable (physics)). This can be explained without technic.In the second part, giving the startling consequences of the first part, I ask the opinion of a Lobian machine. Giving that for them, comp is trivially true (by construction), I can extract some physics from comp. Then I compare with empirical physics. Comp is made refutable, but until now, what I derive just confirm comp.

Hope this helps a little bit,



Reply via email to