# Re: Dennett and others on qualia

```
On 27 Dec 2012, at 20:13, meekerdb wrote:```
```
```
```On 12/27/2012 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```

On 26 Dec 2012, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote:

```
```On 12/26/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```

On 24 Dec 2012, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:

```
```On 12/24/2012 2:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```
```
We don't have to bet the brain is (Turing universal), we can prove it.
```
```
Can we? How would you prove than every person's brain can compute every computable function?
```
```
By teaching them to reduce combinators, which is very simple, or by teaching them to play the Game Of Life, or to interpret a LISP Expression, or more simply by teaching them how to add and multiply natural numbers. If they succeed in one of those task, they can emulate any Universal Turing Machine, and are proved to be themselves Turing Universal. With comp that is enough to conclude that their brain is Turing universal.
```
```
But that doesn't show they can compute every computable function; some functions will take too much memory space and some computations are very long so there will inevitably be mistakes.
```
```
That's the fate of ALL universal number. They have NEVER enough memories. The available 'tape' is always too much short. They always feel like having something more to say. And they always make mistake, unless they are ideally correct, a condition which is met only in the universal number's mind.
```
```
Computable does not mean, concretely computable. That would makes addition and multuplication NOT computable, as nobody can add the 10^10000 first digits of PI.
```
Bruno
```
```
Right, it makes 'computable' an approximate notion.
```
```
It makes "concretely computable" an approximate notion.

```
Computable, on the contrary, is made 100% mathematical, once we assume Church's or Turing's thesis.
```
```
Your laptop, and your brain can be said to approximate the immaterial machine(s) you are, in the comp picture. Like a quantum field approximates your brain, and arithmetic approximates the quantum fields, etc.
```
```
We still have to understand why the quantum fields seems to get the right "comp"-measure.
```

```
But then that breaks the chain of inference that fundamental physics is inconsistent with CTM.
```
Fundamental physics has not been shown inconsistent with CTM.

```
Metaphysical physicalism has been shown inconsistent with CTM, and this by using the mathematical non approximate use of computable.
```

Bruno

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