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 consciousness.
Brent > 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 > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
