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
>> will make no discernable difference in your experience, it entails
>> a computer that functionally replaces your brain is 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?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at