On 9/4/2012 10:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:

*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
function and that your brain function can be replaced by the functioning of
non-brain devices, then you have already agreed that human individuality is
a universal commodity.
Calling it a sleight of hand is a bit rough. It is the meat of the
comp assumption, and spelling it out this way makes it very
explicit. Either you agree you can be copied (without feeling a
thing), or you don't. If you do, you must face up to the consequences
of the argument, if you don't, then you do not accept
computationalism, and the consequences of the UDA do not apply to your
worldview.

Hi Russel,

In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real! That is the entire point of Reality. It is not up to the choice of any one. It is that which is incontrovertible for All of us. The Moon does not vanish when you stop looking at it, simply because you're not its only onlooker!


*Church thesis*: Views computation in isolation, irrespective of resources,
supervenience on object-formed computing elements, etc. This is a
theoretical theory of computation, completely divorced from realism from
the start. What is it that does the computing? How and why does data enter
or exit a computation?
It is necessarily an abstract mathematical thesis. The latter two
questions simply are relevant.

    The issue of I/O is not irrelevant.


*Arithmetical Realism*: The idea that truth values are self justifying
independently of subjectivity or physics is literally a shot in the dark.
Like yes, doctor, this is really swallowing the cow whole from the
beginning and saying that the internal consistency of arithmetic
constitutes universal supremacy without any real indication of
that.
AR is not just about internal consistency of mathematics, it is an
ontological commitment about the natural numbers. Whatever primitive
reality is, AR implies that the primitive reality models the natural
numbers.

Note quite. AR is the stipulation that primitive reality = the natural numbers. The idea has been around for a long time. We silly humans simply cannot wrap our minds around the possibility that more exists than we can count! We must be able to count what we can communicate about in the context of any one message, but this does not place an upper finite bound on the host of possible messages.


In fact, for COMP, and the UDA, Turing completeness of primitive reality is
sufficient, but Bruno chose the natural numbers as his base reality
because it is more familiar to his correspondents.

Sure, but this results in a consistent solipsism of a single mind. It is a prison of reflections of itself, over and over, a Ground Hog Day <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_yDWQsrajA> where there is no possible escape. I am interested in a non-prison version of comp.



Wouldn't computers tend to be self-correcting by virtue of the pull toward
arithmetic truth within each logic circuit? Where do errors come from?

Again, these two questions seem irrelevant.

    No, you just don't understand him.


Craig



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
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