On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Apr 2012, at 22:04, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

    > Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem


Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest part of the mind body "problem" is figuring out what the hell the problem is.

There tuns of books. You might try McGuin, if you have a problem with Nagel. Michael Tye wrote a good book too. See the references in my URL.



The religious demand a explanation of mind, by which they mean give a description of mind in terms of something other than mind, as using a thing to define itself is rather pointless;

That is what we can do with recursion equation. It explains self-reproduction and self-reference. See my paper "amoeba, planaria and dreaming machine".



so scientists do so and explain mind in terms of X (biological brains, electronic computers, abstract Turing Machines, and other things that are not mind ), but when they do so the religious complain "but X is not mind!". Well of course X is not mind, if they explained mind in terms of mind then it would be a pretty silly explanation,

That depends on the theory you are choosing. And it is indeed a priori more easy to explain something immaterial, like consciousness from something immaterial, like numbers, than from primary matter, which we still don't know what it is, or if that exists.


I don't think you have to explain it from *primary* matter. In fact it is usually explained in terms of electrochemistry of neurons and hormones, which are several steps up from quarks and electrons which themselves may not be primary.




but fortunately they use things other than mind to explain how mind works.

Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation explains only the behavior.


I'm not convinced though that comp is any better. It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside.



By the way I read Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" a few weeks ago and thought it was excelent.

He does not explain where the physical laws come from, nor does he addressed the consciousness issue. But of course you need to develop your understanding of the mind-body problem. The english literature contains many good texts. Then the UDA explains how to reformulate the problem into a purely arithmetical problem.

But at the expense of turning physics and everything else into an arithmetical problem. The problem I see with the UDA is that its passivity is contagious. In order to function as an AI in the world it needs more and more of the world to be subsumed into it's computation.

Brent


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4947 - Release Date: 04/19/12

--
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.

--
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.

Reply via email to