On 21 Oct 2012, at 14:45, Roger Clough wrote:


On 20 Oct 2012, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote:

(previously) > Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Comp cannot give subjective content,

BRUNO: This is equivalent to saying that comp is false.

By definition of comp, our consciousness remains intact when we get
the right computer, featuring the brain at a genuine description level.

Then the math confirms this, even in the ideal case of the
arithmetically sound machine, and this by using the most classical
definition of belief, knowledge, etc.

ROGER: The problem is that the since a computer cannot experience
anything (having no 1p) it cannot generate descriptions (3p) of experiences. Or the inverse, to produce experiences (1p) from descriptions (3p) of them.
Computers are imprisoned in a 3p world.


This is just your opinion. It is a form of racism. You don't *know* if a computer can or not have a subjective experience.

Now, if you agree with Theaetetus that knowledge is just true belief, then computer can be shown to have knowledge, and the discourse of the machine can be shown to follow the usual axiomatic of consciousness. The machine knows that it is true, but are aware they cannot prove it, that there is something weird with the concept, etc.




(previously) > can only provide an
> objective simulation on the BEHAVIOR of a person (or his physical
> brain).
> This behavioral information can be dealt with by the
> philosophy of mind called "functionalism":
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/


BRUNO: Here you defend a reductionist conception of what machines and numbers
are. It fails already at 3p level, by the incompleteness phenomena.
(functionalism is an older version of comp, with the substitution
level made implicit, and usually fixed at the neuronal level for the
brain, and in that sense comp is a weaker hypothesis than
functionalism, as it does not bound the comp subst. level.

ROGER: Perhaps, but if I were a brain theorist, I might
withhold judgment, as incompleteness might not spoil
everything,

It spoils everything based on 3p notions, and most brain theorist believe in it.




and my personal attitude is to leave
whatever cards you can play still on the table.

You do the exact contrary, as you decide, apparently, at the start, that machine cannot have a private subjective life, despoite the math show that their 1p views exist and obeys a different logic than their 3p views.

The humans have already done this with the women, the indians, the black skin people, the comatose, the animals, etc.

For an unknown reason you act like feeling superior.



Sometimes you can solve (to some degree of satisfaction)
a mystery with an incomplete set of evidence.


But you are introducing a non necessary mystery. You add something not yet discovered, just to NOT listen to what the machines already can tell us about their own difficulty with the mind-matter problem, and their own distinction between mind and body. What they say is, roughly speaking, what all mystics are saying, like Plotinus, Plato, and many of the east. The ideally correct machine is born with a very special altered state of consciousness. When implemented in a local reality, their soul naturally "fall", and they forget where they come from, and begin to believe in materiality of the dream, ... until they look deeper inward, or read and grasp Plato.

Bruno







>
> "Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what
> makes something a mental
> state of a particular type does not depend on its internal
> constitution, but rather on the way
> it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a
> part. This doctrine is rooted in
> Aristotle's conception of the soul, and has antecedents in Hobbes's
> conception of the mind as
> a ?alculating machine?, but it has become fully articulated (and
> popularly endorsed) only in
> the last third of the 20th century. Though the term ?unctionalism?
> is used to designate a variety
> of positions in a variety of other disciplines, including psychology,
> sociology, economics, and architecture, this entry focuses
> exclusively on
> functionalism as a philosophical thesis about the nature of mental
> states."
>
> A criticism of functionalism and hence of comp is that if one only
> considers his physical behavior (and possibily but not necessarily
> his brain's behavior),
> a person can behave in a certain way but have a different mental
> content.

Good point, and this is a motivation for making explicit the existence
of the level of substitution explicit in the definition.

To survive *for a long time* I would personally ask a correct
simulation of the molecular levels of both the neurons and the glial
cells in the brain.

The UD Argument does NOT depend on the choice of the substitution
level, as long you get a finite digital description relatively to a
universal number/theory/machine.

Bruno



>
>
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 10/20/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-10-19, 03:31:54
> Subject: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if"
> ratherthan"is"
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Oct 2012, at 15:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>
> On 10/17/2012 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>
> On 10/16/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a
> simulation but that is more controversial.
>
> A tempting idea until we question what it is a simulation of?
>
>
> We can close this by considering when is a simulation of a "real
> thing" indistinguishable from the "real thing"!
>
>
> What law states that computations exist ab initio, but the capacity
> to experience and participate in a simulated world does not?
>
>
> Good point! Why not both existing ab initio?
>
>
> But they exists ab initio in the arithmetical truth. So with comp,
> we can postulate only the numbers, or the computations (they are
> ontologically equivalent), then consciousness is semantical fixed
> point, existing for arithmetical reason, yet not describable in
> direct arithmetical term (like truth, by Tarski, or knowledge by
> Scott-Montague. The Theaetetical "Bp & p" is very appealing in that
> setting, as it is not arithmetically definable, yet makes sense in
> purely arithmetical term for each p in the language of the machine
> (arithmetic, say).
>
> So we don't have to postulate consciousness to explain why machine
> will correctly believe in, and develop discourse about, some truth
> that they can know, and that they can also know them to be non
> justifiable, non sharable, and possibly invariant for digital self-
> transformation, etc.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes
> "arithmetic truth". In my thinking, the truth value of a proposition
> is not separable from the ability to evaluate the proposition
>
>
> I agree for mundane truth, but not for the truth we can accept to
> built a fundamental theory.
>
>
> If you accept comp, you know that the ability to evaluate a
> proposition will be explained in term of a functioning machine, and
> this is build on elementary arithmetical truth. So, with comp, you
> statement would make comp circular.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (as Jaakko Hintikka considers) and thus is not some Platonic form
> that has some ontological weight in an eternal "pre-established
> harmony" way. I do not believe that our reality is merely some pre-
> defined program since I am claiming that the "pre-definition" is an
> NP-Hard problem that must be solved prior to its use.
> The best fit for me is an infinity of 1p, each that is a bundle
> of infinite computations, that eternally interact with each other
> (via bisimulation) and not some frozen and pre-existing Being. My
> philosophy is based on that of Heraclitus and not that of
> Parmenides. Being is defined in my thinking as the automorphisms
> within Becoming, thus what is stable and fixed is just those things
> that relatively do not change within an eternally evolving Universe.
>
>
> --
> 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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> --
> 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
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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