On 4/20/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
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.
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
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.
Dear Bruno and Brent,
It might be helpful if you guys would chat a bit about what you
mean by "from the inside". You seem to allude to a outside/inside
relation here. Could you flesh this out a lot more? I have some thoughts
of my own on this, but I would really like to see what your thoughts are
about this relation. For example, does it involve some thing like a
boundary that when crossed is equivalent to a transition from outside to
inside or the reverse? What would define such a boundary for COMP?
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
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