Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Almost is not completely.  In any case, I don't think consciousness is 
maintained 
indefinitely with no inputs.  I think a "brain-in-a-vat" would go into an 
endless 
loop without external stimulus.

>I 
> guess they have no problem with comatose people either.

Comatose people are generally referred to as "unconscious".

> Of course they cannot be even just troubled by the UD, which is a 
> program without inputs and without outputs.

As I understood the UD the program itself was not conscious, but rather that 
some 
parts are supposed to be, relative to a simulated environment.

> 
> 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". 

"Decide" is ambiguous.  She could very well form that hypothesis and find much 
confirming and no contrary evidence.  What are you asking for?  a proof from 
some 
axioms?  Which axioms?

>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.

Suppose a physical machine implements computation and proves relative to some 
axioms 
that physical machines don't exist.  Contradiction?

Brent Meeker


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to