Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> OK, I suppose you could say "I'm intelligent" but not "I + my > environment are intelligent". > That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent > beings, and you are left > with the problem of how to decide whether a physical system is > implementing such a program > given that you can't talk to it. People who believes that inputs (being either absolute-material or relative-platonical) are needed for consciousness should not believe that we can be conscious in a dream, given the evidence that the brain is almost completely cut out from the environment during rem sleep. I guess they have no problem with comatose people either. Of course they cannot be even just troubled by the UD, which is a program without inputs and without outputs. Now, without digging in the movie-graph, I would still be interested if someone accepting "standard comp" (Peter's expression) could explain how a digital machine could correctly decide that her environment is "real-physical". If such machine and reasoning exist, it will be done in Platonia, and, worst, assuming comp, it will be done as correctly as the real machine argument. This would lead to the fact that in Platonia, there are (many) immaterial machines proving *correctly* that they are immaterial. Contradiction. Remark: the key idea which is used here is that not only programs belong to Platonia, but their relative computations also. It is important to keep the distinction between (static) programs and their "dynamical" computations. I will write Fi, as the function computed by the ith programs in some universal enumeration of partial recursive functions (like an infinite list of fortran programs, say). I will write Fi(x) for the value of that function with input x, if that value exists. I will write sFi(x) the "s-trace" of that program (with input x), where the trace stops after the sth steps in the relative run of Fi(x). The trace is computer scientist name for a description of the computational steps---it can be shown that such computational steps can always be defined for the Fi and Wi. I will define a (3-PERSON) computation of Fi(x) as being the sequence 1Fi(x), 2Fi(x), 3Fi(x), etc ... This is well defined relatively to some universal number or code. In this sense, computations belong to Platonia. The reason why I feel myself here and now can then be reduced to the relative 1-person comp indeterminacy a-la Washington/Moscow. Note that the adjective "relative" is capital here. Without it, the indexical conception of time (and space) would not work. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
