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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---