On 01 Aug 2011, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:

## Advertising

On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:What machine attributes are not Turing emulable? I thought Churchsaysthat all real computations are Turing emulable.But for Church the "real computations" are what can do a finite mind with a finite set of transparent instructions, in a finite time, but with as much memory and time he needs. It is the "intuitively computable functions".I didn't realize it was that limited.

`It is not that limited. It is the only effective set (you can`

`generated it) which is close for the most trancendental operation`

`known in math (diagonalization). Just this makes that set`

`explicatively close.`

I wasn't thinking of real in the sense of only physical, but if Church posits a finite 'mind' with transparent 'instructions' then it would seem useless for emulating qualia.

I guess that is trivial assuming your non-comp theory.

Does a mind include sensation and perception?

`It does not exclude it, but that is only elementary relevant. A Turing`

`machine must be able to recognize if some symbol is on its tape or`

`not, and act in a way depending on its state, but above that nothing`

`much is needed. Indeed the goal is to explain the complex (sensation`

`and perception) from the simplest (elementary perception and obeisance`

`to elementary laws). If not this is a bit like a treachery, as far as`

`we look for an explanation, perhaps even partial.`

It seems very narrow

`It is not, by result in computer science, we know what the simplest`

`thing can get awfully bizarre, unpredictible, deep and sophisticated.`

`We can only scratch on the surface, and provably so, assuming comp.`

and special case begging.

You are the one supposed to motivated us for a non-comp theory.

There is no reference at all with any idea of "real" in the sense of physically real, which is something never defined. David Deutsch has introduced a "physical" version of Church thesis, but this has no bearing at all with Church thesis. Actually I do think that Church thesis makes Deutsch thesis false, but I am not sure (yet I am sure that Church thesis + "yes doctor" leads to the existence of random oracle and local violation of Church thesis by some physical phenomena (akin to iterated self-multiplication).So if there are machine aspects that are not Turing emulable, why aren't they primitive?

`Because we recover them in the epistemologies, or at the meta-level,`

`when we listen to the average LUMs in the tiny UD, or sigma_1`

`arithmetical truth. They are either definable or derivable.`

`From inside it is bigger than Everett multiverse (and that might be a`

`"real" problem for comp: the white rabbit problem which is equivalent`

`with the problem of justifying the stability and sharability of the`

`physical appearances from numbers and addition+multiplication).`

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.