On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody > >>>> has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the > >>>> answer is expected to do. > >>> > >>> I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the > >>> solution. When we can build AI robots that exhibit (including > >>> reporting) intelligent and emotional responses similar to humans > >>> and we can map between their AI and the function of brains in a > >>> way that allows us to reliably adjust the behavior of AI robots > >>> and/or humans - then we will have "solved" the problem, in the > >>> practical sense that no one will care about it in general terms > >>> but will discuss it in technical terms the way biologists discuss > >>> protein production and messenger RNA and DNA error correction but > >>> no longer discuss "what is life?". > >> > >> No this will not work. We must test the physical consequence of the > >> belief that the brain can be truncated at a finite level. > > > > Sure. Not only will we build AI robots, but we will also use the > > understanding we develop to modify brains and cure some mental > > illness; which will entail learning the proper level of > > substitution. But it will all be inferred from behavior and reports > > and mapping between AI and brain processes. > > In part, as the pioneer of technological (local) immortality will take > the first approximation. My point is more concrete, comp leads to > testable observation in the physical world, indeed the laws of physics. > > Comp gives the realm where the laws of physics evolves, a sort of many > interfering 'matrix' which exists by the law of + and *. It is > testable, with the classical theory of knowledge (not Theatetus, > except that Theaetetus gives it when apply to sigma_1 complete > provability). > > But what makes the laws of physics turn into physics? What makes physics follow the laws? What would be the point of physics if this realm of Comp already exists?