Hi Alberto, Yes, all good points. We don't have access to our non-metacomputational layers, but that still doesn't mean that computation implies any sort of awareness. A string of dominoes falling is a computation but there need not be an experience there if all there was to the event was the geometric-gravitational sequence of object relation playing out that we experience as observers.
Whether awareness is truly non-computational or just inaccessible to our computation makes no difference as far as the point I am making. Neither descriptor implies experience. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain consciousness. Just because we have a physiological description within our own collective human experience doesn't mean that we should be able to reverse engineer awareness itself from that description alone. Doing so may be a catastrophic distortion. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:21:49 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > Hi: > > Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) > computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do > things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time > status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called > "interpreters". > > The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that > any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that > the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can > manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second > is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. > > For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our > intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. > We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed > as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb "to be fired" to > mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware > of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the > observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means > of an adquired metacomputation. > > The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman > for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. > In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of > diagonalization by Gödel makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same > conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive > mathematical program. (see my post about the Gödel theorem). > > Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free > will nor in any other existential question. > > 2012/8/29 Roger Clough <[email protected] <javascript:>> > >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> >> I agree. >> >> Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: >> >> Cs = subject + object >> >> The subject is always first person indeterminate. >> Being indeterminate, it is not computable. >> >> QED >> >> >> Roger Clough, [email protected] <javascript:> >> 8/29/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> >> *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 >> *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary >> >> This sentence does not speak English. >> >> These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. >> >> s l u ,u s >> >> >> If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate >> that form is not inherently informative. >> >> The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as >> ascertaining the origin of awareness. >> >> Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless >> epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation >> can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular >> category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. >> >> Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what >> Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp >> contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively >> assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G >> del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of >> course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be >> complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect >> that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, >> but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that >> this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining >> consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a >> priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. >> >> Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of >> awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or >> that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary >> indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place >> and *why* is has not been addressed at all. >> >> As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to >> demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative >> assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another >> thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure >> up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not >> follow from quanta. >> >> Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of >> sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining >> shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would >> necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between >> channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial >> frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the >> entropy of the totality. >> >> Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from >> either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, >> for direct participation? >> >> Craig >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OP7M4cmbaCIJ. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:>. >> 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 [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:>. >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/J5JjjhcMktwJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
