On 11 May 2011, at 19:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/11/2011 1:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 May 2011, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/10/2011 9:01 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 10 May 2011 13:21, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be>  wrote:


What does it mean for numbers to understand?

Suppose I can answer this in a way that you understand. Then it means the
same things for the numbers.

This seems to me to be a very central point.  Chalmers gives very
convincing arguments why an "Aristotelian machine's" expressed
behaviour (including its "thoughts" and "beliefs") are
indistinguishable from a conscious person's - excepting only that it
is not IN FACT conscious (!).

How does he establish that it is not conscious?

This alone should be enough (as indeed
he argues) to demonstrate the inadequacy of such a metaphysics of
matter, unless consciousness itself is to be denied (which, as Deutsch argues in his most recent book, is just bad explanation). It seems as
if, starting from an Aristotelian perspective, there is no way this
puzzle can be resolved even with the addition of various ad hoc
assumptions (such as Chalmers himself attempts, unsuccessfully IMO);
the assumed primacy of "material processes" inevitably ends in the
vitiation of "mental" explanation, in this view of the matter.  To
resolve the puzzle it seems that "material processes" and "mental
processes" (or, one might say, material and mental explanations) must emerge as deeply correlated aspects of a single narrative. Hence, if
computationalism is to be the explanation for the mental, it must
likewise suffice as that of the material.

The problem with computationalism is that "exists => is computed" does not entail "computed => exists" and if you hypothesize the latter it explains too much.

But comp precisely prevents the possibility that "exists => is computed". For example comp entails the existence of many non computable functions, incompleteness, etc. That is what theoretical computer science illustrates (usually by diagonalization).

Incompleteness is the non-existence of some proofs.

... of some proof of some arithmetical truth. Yes, and ...?



That some functions are not-computable only implies their existence in the sense that they are implied by some axioms.


Now, the reverse, that is, "computed => exists", is trivially true, with "exists" used in the usual arithmetical sense, like in "prime numbers exists".

But it also entails that The World of Warcraft and what I dreamed last night exist.

This is already the case with Everett. The interesting question is not what exist, but what is accessible with reasonable probabilities from my current situation. And here comp does not explains too much. It might still predict too much, but the point is that comp is precise enough to make this testable, and that up to now, it explains pretty well the origin of QM, and the existence of qualia which QM per se even fails to address.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to