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 
indefinitely with no inputs.  I think a "brain-in-a-vat" would go into an 
loop without external stimulus.

> 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 
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 
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 
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to