On 30 Aug 2011, at 14:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Aug 30, 4:06 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Definitely, but the reasons that we have for causing those changes in
the semiconductor material are not semiconductor logics. They use
hardware logic to to get the hardware to do software logic, just as
the mind uses the brain's hardware to remember, imagine, plan, or
execute what the mind wants it to. What the mind wants is influenced
by the brain, but the brain is also influenced directly by the mind.

A hard-wired universal machine can emulate a self-transforming
universal machine, or a high level universal machine acting on its low
level universal bearer.

Ok, but can it emulate a non-machine?

This is meaningless.

The point is just this one: do you or not make your theory relying on
something non-Turing emulable. If the answer is yes: what is it?

Yes, biological, zoological, and anthropological awareness.

If you mean by this, 1-awareness, comp explains its existence and its non Turing emulability, without introducing ad hoc non Turing emulable beings in our physical neighborhood. This is enough precise to be tested, and we can argue that some non computable quantum weirdness, like quantum indeterminacy, confirmed this. The simple self- duplication illustrates quickly how comp makes possible to experience non computable facts without introducing anything non computable in the third person picture.

Feeling as
qualitatively distinct from detection.

Of course. Feeling is distinct from detection. It involves a person, which involves some (not big) amount of self-reference ability.

Not to disqualify machines
implemented in a particular material - stone, silicon, milk bottles,
whatever, from having the normal detection experiences of those
substances and pbjects, but there is nothing to tempt me to want to
assign human neurological qualia to milk bottles stacked up like
dominoes. We know about synesthesia and agnosia, and I am positing
HADD or prognosia to describe how the assumption of qualia equivalence
is invalid.

If we make a machine out of living cells, then we run into the problem
of living cells not being easily persuaded to do our bidding. To
physically enact the design of universal machine, you need a
relatively inanimate substance, which is the very thing that you
cannot use to make a living organism with access to qualia in the
biological range.

But we can emulate a brain with milk bottles, so you agree that there is zombie in your theory. Above you say that awareness is not Turing emulable, but my question was: do you know what in the brain is not Turing emulable? You cannot answer by some 1-notion, because comp explains why they exist, and why they are not Turing emulable, (albeit manifestable by Turing emulation with some probability with respect to you). To negate comp, you have to show something, different than matter and consciousness, which necessitates an actual infinite amount of bits.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to