On 20 Apr 2012, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote:
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>
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.
That is what UDA proves, indeed.
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 it uses some identity mind/brain thesis, which does not work (by
UDA). They use the background identity of primitive matter to attach
the mind to a primitive body, and inconsistently so if if they suppose
a digital substitution level anywhere.
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.
At least comp does reduce the problem to a well define mathematical
problem.
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.
They can be both, but UDA shows that this leads to a reduction of
physics to arithmetic. The reduction is constructive, so comp become
testable and acquire a scientific status (which is my main point).
My point is not that comp is true. Just that it is scientifically
testable. then I show mathematical evidence that indeed the quantum is
recovered from comp. And I give a gift: the qualia are too.
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.
But that is nice. It explains physics from something else.
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.
UDA is valid, ... or it is not (but then you have to find a flaw).
UDA is a proof. The problem with UDA is a problem with logic and/or
reality.
Bruno
Brent
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - 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-
l...@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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
