On 25 Sep 2013, at 07:43, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/24/2013 9:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 16:39, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
Right. "Idle" isn't exactly the right word. I think that like "life" consciousness will be seen to be different things and there will be distinguished different kinds of consciousness and we'll design robots to have more or less and this kind or that. And we'll design drugs and brain implants to change and augment human brains based on our understanding of these different things that we now tend to lump under "consciousness".

Yes. that's my feeling. Arthur C Clarke and uniting into the "Overmind" as a sort of worth-wide-web of human brains, for one example. But more likely, and less mystically, time-sharing on each other's brains and swapping sense feeds and so on, so ego boundaries become blurred and what it means to be "me" dissolves ... I'm hoping I get to see / experience some of this!

So that answers Russell's question, at least from your point of view as (I assume) a "primary materialist", and (interestingly, IMHO) equally answers the criticism (if it was intended as such) that Craig leveled against comp.

As I understand Bruno's theory it also 'dissolves' the hard problem by reducing it to a property of certain logics, namely a computational system is (or can be) conscious if it is Lobian, i.e. if it can prove Godel's incompleteness about itself.


Not just that. See below.




This seems too narrowly technical to me (does it actually have to have done the proof, or just be potentially able to do it?), but I can see that it would be a facet of intelligence that would contribute a certain aspect of consciousness.

I assume that it merely has to be capable of doing it (a bit like Penrose's rather derided ideas in "The Emperor's new Mind"). Otherwise we have the unlikely scenario that only mathematicians and logicians are conscious!

Of course Bruno proposes that the logic (as in arithmetic for example) exists in platonia and that the physical world is just an aspect of relations in arithmetic. I'm not sure about that, but I suspect that if fully worked out the derivative physical world will prove necessary for the logic to produce consciousness - so physics is maybe not so derivative.

Comp explicitly denies the need for a physical world (if I understand it correctly) so if that did turn out to be necessary, I think it would disprove comp?

Bruno gives that impression sometimes, but when pressed he explains that he only means that the physical world not fundamental, it is derivative or emergent, not that it is unnecessary. I like to think of it like this,

NUMBERS -> "MACHINE DREAMS" -> PHYSICAL -> HUMANS -> PHYSICS -> NUMBERS

which was originally suggested by Bruno, but he later said he wasn't serious.

?  I am serious on this :)
May be I meant that the more proper way to put it is:

NUMBERS -> "MACHINE DREAMS" -> PHYSICAL -> HUMANS -> human PHYSICS -> human NUMBERS



If you think of it in terms of explanations or modeling, instead of causality, then I think the circle can be virtuous IF it's big enough to take everything in.


OK.

A key point consists in using the intensional nuances of the provability predicate. Matter does not come from incompleteness per se, but from its consequences translated in the different machine's points of view. It fits well also with Plotinus' Platonic correction of Aristotle negative definition of matter (where "god" loses control, what God cannot determined, like W/M in the duplication thought experiences).

Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to