Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 23 May 2009, at 06:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2009, at 18:25, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
>>>> universe that it could be made conscious,
>>> But a computer is never conscious, nor is a brain. Only a person is
>>> conscious, and a computer or a brain can only make it possible for a
>>> person to be conscious relatively to another computer. So your
>>> question is ambiguous.
>>> It is not my brain which is conscious, it is me who is conscious.
>> By "me" do you mean some computation in Platonia?  I'm wondering what
>> are the implications of your theory for creating "artificial"
>> consciousness.  Since comp starts with the assumption that replacing
>> one's brain with functionally  identical units (at some level of  
>> detail)
>> will make no discernable difference in your experience, it entails  
>> that
>> a computer that functionally replaces your brain is conscious  
>> (conscious
>> of being you in fact).  So if I want to build a conscious robot from
>> scratch, not by copying someone's brain, what must I do?
> I don't see the problem, besides the obvious and usual difficulties of  
> artificial intelligence.
> Actually if you implement a theorem prover for Peano Arithmetic (=  
> Robinson Arithmetic + the induction axioms) I am willing to say that  
> you have build a conscious entity.
But why?  Why not RA without induction?  Is it necessary that there be 
infinite schema?  Since you phrase your answer as "I am willing..." is 
it a matter of your intuition or is it a matter of "degree" of 


> It is the entity that I interview (thanks to the work of Gödel, Löb  
> and Solovay).
> The person related to it, which I identify with the knower (obeying to  
> the theaetetical logic of "provable(p) & p")
> exist simultaneously in all the possible relative implementations of  
> it in platonia or in UD* (the universal deployment).
> I mean it is the same for a copy of me, or an intelligent robot build  
> from scratch. Both "person" exist in an atemporal and aspatial ways in  
> Platonia, and will appear concrete to any entity belonging to some  
> computation where they can manifest themselves.
> Like numbers. 17 exists in Platonia, but 17 has multiple  
> implementation in many computations in Platonia.
> I guess I miss something because I don't see any problem here. You may  
> elaborate perhaps. We are in the seven step here. Are you sure you  
> grasp the six preceding steps?
> Bruno
> >

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
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to