On Feb 29, 4:33 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2012, at 20:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >>> There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
> >>> phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock doesn't
> >>> know what time it is.
> >> A clock has no self-referential ability.
> > How do you know?
> By looking at the structure of the clock. It does not implement self-
> reference. It is a finite automaton, much lower in complexity than a
> universal machine.
Knowing what time it is doesn't require self reference. By comp it
should be generated by the 1p experience of the logic of the gears of
> > By comp logic, the clock could just be part of a
> > universal timekeeping machine - just a baby of course, so we can't
> > expect it to show any signs of being a universal machine yet, but by
> > comp, we cannot assume that clocks can't know what time it is just
> > because these primitive clocks don't know how to tell us that they
> > know it yet.
> Then the universal timekeeping would be conscious, not the baby clock.
> Level confusion.
A Swiss watch has a fairly complicated movement. How many watches does
it take before they collectively have a chance at knowing what time it
is? If all self referential machines arise from finite automation
though (by UDA inevitability?), the designation of any Level at all is
arbitrary. How does comp conceive of self referential machines
evolving in the first place?
> >> You reason like that: no animals can fly, because pigs cannot fly.
> > You mistake my common sense reductio for shortsighted prejudice. I
> > would say that your reasoning is that if we take a pig on a plane, we
> > can't rule out the possibility that it has become a bird.
> No. You were saying that computer cannot think, because clock cannot
And I'm right. A brain can think because it's made of living cells
which diverged from an organic syzygy in a single moment. A computer
or clock cannot think because they are assembled artificially from
unrelated components, none of which have the qualities of an organic
molecule or living cell.
> > This is
> > another variation on the Chinese Room. The pig can walk around at
> > 30,000 feet and we can ask it questions about the view from up there,
> > but the pig has not, in fact learned to fly or become a bird. Neither
> > has the plane, for that matter.
> Your analogy is confusing. I would say that the pig in the plane does
> fly, but this is out of the topic.
It could be said that the pig is flying, but not that he has *learned
to fly* (and especially not learned to fly like a bird - which would
be the direct analogy for a computer simulating human consciousness).
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