On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 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.
I suppose I can be copied. But does it follow that I am just the
computations in my brain. It seems likely that I also require an
outside environment/world with which I interact in order to remain
conscious. Bruno passes this off by saying it's just a matter of the
level of substitution, perhaps your local environment or even the
whole galaxy must be replaced by a digital representation in order to
maintain your consciousness unchanged. But this bothers me. Suppose
it is the whole galaxy, or the whole observed universe. Does it
really mean anything then to say your brain has been replaced ALONG
WITH EVERYTHING ELSE? It's just the assertion that everything is
computable.
Hear Hear! And if it is computable then it is nothing but countable
and recursively enumerable functions. But can functions generate I/O
from themselves? We see nice examples of entire computable universes in
MMORP games that have many people addicted to them. One thing about
them, we require resources to be run. Nothing happens if you don't pay
the fee.
*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.
*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.
ISTM that Bruno rejects any reality behind the natural numbers (or
other system of computation). If often argues that the natural
numbers exist, because they satisfy true propositions: There exists a
prime number between 1 and 3, therefore 2 exists. This assumes a
Platonist view of mathematical objects, which Peter D. Jones has
argued against.
Platonism fails because it cannot explain how many minds interact.
It is a wonderful ontology theory of a single mind, but not of many
differing minds.
Brent
--
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.
