Hi,
Those who dislikes introduction can skip up to "THE FIRST THOUGHT
EXPERIMENT AND THE FIRST QUESTION".
---------------------
INTRODUCTION
MGA is for Movie Graph Argument (like UDA is for Universal Dovetailer
Argument).
By UDA(1...7), the seven first step of the UDA, we have a proof or
argument that
(COMP + there is a concrete universe with a concrete universal
dovetailer running forever in it)
implies that
physics is emerging statistically from the computations (as seen
from a "first person points of view").
Note: I will use "computationalism, digital mechanism, and even just
mechanism, as synonymous.
MGA is intended to eliminate the hypothesis that:
there is a concrete universe with a concrete universal dovetailer
running forever)
Leading to: comp implies that physics is a branch of (mathematical)
computer science.
Some nuances will have to be added. But I prefer to be slightly wrong,
and understandable, than to make a long list of "vocabulary" and
pursuing in some obscur jargon.
But in case you have not read the UDA, there is no problem. MGA by
itself shows something independent of the UDA, indeed it shows (is
supposed to show) that the physical supervenience thesis is false.
Consciousness does not supervene on the *physical activity* of the
brain/computer/universe. This shows that mechanism is incompatible
with materialism (even weak form) or naturalism or physicalism,
because they traditionally assume the physical supervenience thesis.
It is more subtle than UDA, and I expect possible infinite
discussions. (Zombies will come back!)
Now a preliminary remark for clarifying what we mean by MECHANISM.
When the mechanist says "yes" to the doctor, it is because he believes
(or hopes) he will survive QUA COMPUTATIO (sorry for the latin). I
mean he believes that he will survive because the computational device
he will get in place of its old brain does the "right" computations
(which exists by hypothesis). he does not believe something like this
(although he could!). I believe that there is God who will, by its
magic means, pull out my soul, and then put it back in the new
computational device.
A mechanical theory of consciousness, as well explained by Dennett,
should rely of the fact that we don't attribute knowledge or
consciousness, still less prescience, to the neurons, or elementary
logical gates, or quarks, ... that is to the elementary part of the
computational device. (The elementary parts depends of course of the
substitution level choice).
This means, assuming both mechanism and naturalism (i.e. the physical
supervenience thesis), that when consciousness supervenes on the
physical activity of a brain, no neuron is aware of the other neurons
to which they are related. Each neuron is "aware" only of some
information they get of the neurons, not of the neurons themselves. If
that was not the case, so that some neurons have some prescience of
the identity of the neurons to which they are connected, it would just
mean, when keeping the mechanist hypothesis, that we have not chosen
the right level of substitution, and should go down further.
Now come the first thought experiment and the first question.
-------------------------
THE FIRST THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AND THE FIRST QUESTIONS (MGA 1) : The
lucky cosmic event.
One billions years ago, at one billion light years away, somewhere in
the universe (which exists by the naturalist hypo) a cosmic explosion
occurred. And ...
... Alice had her math exam this afternoon.
From 3h to 4h, she solved successfully a problem. She though to
herself, "oh, easy, Oh careful there is trap, yet I can solve it".
What really happened is this. Alice already got an artificial brain,
since a fatal brain tumor in her early childhood. At 3h17 pm one
logical gate did broke, (resp. two logical gates, three, 24, 4567,
234987, ... all).
But Alice was lucky (incredibly lucky). When the logical gate A did
break, and for example did not send a bit to logical gate B, an
energetic particle coming from the cosmic explosion, by pure chance,
did trigger the logical gate B at the right time. And just after this
happening another energetic particle fixed the gate problem.
Question: did this change Alice's consciousness during the exam?
I ask the same question with 2440 broken gates. They broke, let us say
during an oral exam, and each time a gate broke, by sending a wrong
info, or by not sending some info, an energetic particle coming from
that cosmic explosion do the job, and at some point in time, a bunch
of energetic particle fix Alice's brain.
Suppose that ALL the neurons/logical gates of Alice are broken during
the exam, all the time. But Alice, I told you, is incredibly lucky,
and that cosmic beam again manage each logical gates to complete their
work in the relevant places and times. And again at the end of the
exam, a cosmic last beam fixed her brain. In particular she succeed
the exam, and she can explain later to her mother, with her sane
(artificial) brain, that she thought tp herself, during the oral
exam: "oh, easy, Oh careful there is trap, yet I can solve it".
The last question (of MGA 1) is: was Alice, in this case, a zombie
during the exam?
I let you think.
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
