On 12 Aug 2011, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 12, 5:01 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2011, at 14:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:14 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
The conclusion is that such a device is
impossible because it leads to conceptual difficulties.
Consciousness itself leads to conceptual difficulties. Except for
fact that we cannot ignore that it is undeniable, we could never
logically conceive of consciousness.
Can we logically conceive a reality?
Sure, as long as it's a reality within our own perceptual relativity
frame of reference.
That is too vague for me to comment. I don't know what you are assuming.
The further our imaginary reality is from our own
PRIF, the less likely that it could reflect the concrete experiences
that would occur there if that reality were manifested physically.
How would you justify that?
What can be shown is that each of two universal machines put in front
of each other can develop a true and incommunicable belief in a
reality. I think that's consciousness. It is an instinctive belief in
a reality. Self-consciousness is that same belief but with a belief
a separation between the believer and the believed.
I think it depends on what the machines actually are physically as to
what they will be able to believe or develop.
What do you mean by "physically"?
If you execute the
machine in silicon, you're going to have a polite glass sculpture of
belief, not a fierce, viscerally passionate belief.
So mind is something physical and non Turing emulable. But we don't
know anything physical which is not either Turing emulable, or
recovered by self-indetermination (like in quantum superposition). So,
to solve a problem, you are introducing more mystery than there is
already. I don't see how this can solve anything. In french we call
that a "fuite en avant" (forward-escape).
The math alone can
create a correspondence as-if it were true, but only the physics
With the comp theory, physics is an emerging pattern in the mind of
numbers. A good thing, because I don't take physics for granted, at
least not in a primitively grounded way.
create the conditions of true through experience in spite of logic,
which is what gives the believer not only separation but something of
a trump-card privilege over the believed.
I can follow you, but it makes both mind and matter rather magical.
In a contest of math v
physics, I think the physical can generate novelties in advance of
But what is the physical?
so that the arithmetic is an analytical afterthought.
How to explain that the physical obeys to the arithmetical? How will
you explain the role of math in physics?
cannot be anticipated from the math alone,
I can understand that is true for geography, but why to assert this
for physics? What is physics?
it can only be reverse
engineered from factual physical observations.
But what is that?
Math can of course be
used to build on physics as well (nuclear fission, etc) but it still
requires a priori indexes of atomic behaviors which are independent
from pure arithmetic.
Why? I mean, even if comp is false, why would we a priori reject an
explanation, if the goal was not for justifying that sort of silicon
racism. It seems to me that you make matter, mind, the relation
between awfully mysterious just to justify a segregation among
possible entities for personhood.
At least you are coherent, you seems to need stuffy matter, like the
EM field, then mechanism cannot make sense, unless I am wrong
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at