# Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

```On 10/17/2012 12:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```

```
On 17 Oct 2012, at 02:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
```
It is the inability of comp to solve the arithmetic body problem that is its Achilles heel.
```
```
No. It is the strongest point of comp. It does solve it constructively, so it makes comp testable and/or our simulation level measurable.
```
Dear Bruno,

```
Yes, my wording was wrong, exactly the opposite is what I meant to write. I blame my dyslexia. :_(
```
```
```
```
You can see it in another way, comp explains how and where the laws of physics, and psychology, come from, and with the whole consciousness/matter coupling. It does not solve the problem because the math are hard, only. Then the logic of observability, perhaps in a toy case, are already given and tested.
```
```
Yes, I agree but must point out that the constructable solution is only of a single arithmetic mind due to the strong implication of Tennenbaum's theorem <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennenbaum%27s_theorem>! There is only a single countable model of arithmetic that is recursive. My suggestion is that we can get a true plurality of arithmetic models if we allow the nonstandard models but make the constant symbol (that designates the particular nonstandard version <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic#From_the_compactness_theorem>) invisible to the model, thus the model will have "plausible deniability" that it is not a standard model of arithmetic. This, I suspect, will give us a way to "center" each of an infinite number of observers in a compact and Hausdorff universe and allow the definition of commutative relations between the 1p of these.
```
```
```
That there is a body problem is the interesting thing, imo.
```
```
It is very interesting to me. I want to solve it!

```
```
```
The other theories assume the body, and the mind, and some relation shown incompatible with comp.
```
I agree.

```
```
```
Comp, as such, is not an explanation. Just a frame where we can formulate the problem mathematically, and that is the main reason to study it, even if false. In fact, you need to study to comp to develop an authentic non-comp theory.
```
Right. I accept comp in this way.

```
```
```
Comp is not an explanation per se, neither of the mind nor of the body. The explanation is in the reasoning and the math. Comp itself is just the bet that we are Turing emulable at *some* level.
```
```
Yes. I want to extend the idea so that we have a way of 'indexing" the levels in a constructable way to recover a local measure.
```

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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