Tom>> Instead of "conscious brain" I should have said "consciousness".  The yes-doctor hypothesis in comp tells me that you are assuming the existence of consciousness.  
Bruno> Yes. Under the form of a minimal amount of what is called (in philosophy of mind/cognitive science) "grandmother or folk psychology". Now (to cut the air a little bit) "assuming" does not seem right to me. I just hope people can understand in a mundane way question like "will I survive the operation in the hospital" etc. Also I don't like expression like "a conscious brain" or a "conscious program". It is "Searles' error". Only a person can be conscious. No doubt the brain plays some role but a brain is not conscious, nor a program, nor a string.

Tom:  OK
Tom>> Also, is not the "psychology" that you are reducing physics to "consciousness" (or an equivalent approximation)? 
Bruno> I don't understand the sentence.

Tom: My sentence was poorly worded. I'll try again: The UDA argues that "fundamental physics is necessarily reducible to fundamental psychology." I've read a statement by you somewhere (I think on this list) that this fundamental psychology basically talking about consciousness. Here it is one such quote: "The reversal will be epistemological: the branch "physics" will be a branch of machine's psychology, and ontological: matter will emerge from consciousness, in some sense, hopefully clearer after reading the proof."
Actually this particular quote seems to present consciousness as the ontological counterpart to the epistemological "fundamental psychology", just as matter is considered the ontological counterpart to epistemological "fundamental physics". So "psychology" is our way of thinking about consciousness, just as "physics" is our way of thinking about matter. So the statement "...physics is...reducible to psychology" is basically saying "our way of thinking about matter is reducible to our way of thinking about consciousness", or "physics is reducible to our way of thinking about consciousness".

Tom>> Is not your use of the word "discourse", even though it is a > "correct-by-definition discourse", and also your use of the words > "observable" and "verifiable", meant to portray something that can be > observed by, imagined by, and encoded into our consciousness?  So is > not your assumption that we can fit this "fundamental/perfect physics"
into our consciousness? 
Bruno>> Yes if by "our" you refer to the lobian machines. But if you mean by it "human" then it is a big anthropomorphism. Also I avoid the term "consciousness". Eventually consciousness will be linked to  automatic (unconscious!) inference of self-consistency from some 1 person point of view. 

Tom: I guess I'll have to ponder this more. In general I am uncomfortable with having terms like "physics" and "psychology/consciousness" defined (redefined?) later on in an argument rather than at the beginning. In such a setting, I find it very difficult (impossible?) to get a grasp of what your hypotheses are. In parallel, I guess I have another question: It seems that in the UDA you artificially limit all of physics to be the solution to one particular thought experiment. This seems narrow to me.


Reply via email to