Hi Stathis, The separation you missed is that mind and consciousness are subjective entities(not shareable), while computations are objective (shareable).
Nature put a firewall between these so we don't get them confused. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 09:19:40 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Hi Stathis Papaioannou Computation can give you letters on a page. Are they conscious ? There's no way that I can think of however, to prove or disprove that objects are conscious or not, only that they may simulate consciousness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 10:45:10 Subject: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is >> not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all >> possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of >> physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. > > > That is "Tegmark error". It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers > have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, > once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers > as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global > indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and > physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what > Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when > entering on this mailing list. > > Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for > example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one > computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term > of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this > sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
