On 9 December 2013 20:54, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/8/2013 4:33 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 9 December 2013 05:52, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness
>> Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being processed;
>> if conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes at the end of a long
>> line of "what is that?" questions, then after saying that there is just
>> nothing more that can be said about it. And hey, it's just as good as a
>> billion other consciousness theories.
> Ah yes, Max Tegmark's "theory".These aren't theories, is the problem.
> One needs a rigorous definition of what consciousness is, to start with,
> I think that's wrong. Consciousness is defined ostensively: What you're
> thinking as you read this and similar experiences. Of course you can
> define something in a model and say this is going to turn out to be
> consciousness in my model. This is what Bruno tries to do, he takes
> computation by the UD and then says proving theorems of arithmetic are
> beliefs and other conscious experiences must be in there somewhere. But
> it's not that much more complete than the one you credit to Tegmark (I
> think it far preceded him).
> To be fair to Bruno, he takes the idea that any computations that generate
consciousness are sufficient, so if one assumes (as per materialism) that
the mind and consciousness are, somehow, "what the brain produces", then
the question is whether the part of the universe containing the brain in
question is Turing-emulable (in principle, even if it would require
unimaginable resources in practice). So he is at least starting from a
standard materialist stance, and as it were "Godelising" it. That stance
got me as far as the MGA, which I don't really get, and I am still not au
fait with the UDA. It all sounds very interesting but I shall of course be
agnostic until - if - I manage to get my head around it.
> and then a theory that explains all its observed features, and makes
> testable predictions. Otherwise all one has is a jumble of words.
> And the real gold standard is that it makes a successful and surprising
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.