On 28 Jan 2012, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2012 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2012, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2012 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Pierz, Craig, I disagree. Consciousness can be explained as a non
3p describable fixed point when machine's observe themselves.
Why is this not 3p describable? Your explanation of it seems to
imply a description.
Yes, but the explanation is not consciousness itself.
In the UDA, you are supposed to know what consciousness is. You are
asked to believe that your consciousness remains invariant for a
functional digital substitution.
In the AUDA, consciousness is not mentioned. It is handled
indirectly via knowledge, which is defined via an appeal to truth,
which (by Tarski theorem) is not definable by the mechanical entity
In B'"1+1=2" & 1+1=2, the "1+1 = 2" is a description, but 1+1=2 is
not. It is true fact, and as such cannot be described. We cannot
translate True("1+1=2") in arithmetic. We can do it at some meta-
level, when we study a simpler machine than us, that we believe to
be correct, like PA. But then we can see that neither PA, nor any
correct machine can do this for *itself*.
Consciousness, knowledge, truth, are concept which does not admit
formal definition; when they encompass ourselves.
I wasn't asking for a formal definition, just a 3p description.
I model the 3p idea by formal. "formal" just means having a local
finitely describable shape. Consciousness is not a product of any such
You are saying that B"1+1=2" is a description of being conscious
Not at all. I am saying that B"1+1=2" & 1+1=2, is a description of
being conscious that 1+1=2.
B"1+1=2" just mean that the machine believes p (using Dennett'
intentional stance, or some generalized non-zombie attitude. For
correct machine Bp is the same as "the machine asserts p", "the
machine proves p", but supposedly express by the machine itself (in
general). Knowledge of p is (Bp & p). This related knowledge to an
aspect of consciousness: its non formal definablity. By Tarski, we
cannot define (Bp & p) is arithmetic, although we can simulate it for
each particular arithmetical p (by itself).
This confuses me though because I read B as "provable"; yet many
things are provable of which we are not conscious.
Sure. That's why we use Bp & p instead. And this changes everything,
even for the correct (a priori) machine, because that machine cannot
know that she is correct.
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