"I think step 8 uses a false premise that one can anticipate all the
counterfactual events. Or looked at another way, it implies that to show
consciousness could be realized without physics requires creating a whole
I could not say better myself! Bravo!
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:06 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
>> On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>> On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
>>>>>> conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
>>>>>> a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea
>>>>>> that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous?
>>>>> I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
>>>>> made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
>>>>> progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
>>>>> becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
>>>>> performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
>>>>> exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
>>>>> form of mysticism.
>>> It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be
>>> recovered from the UD and modal logic.
>> No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that
>> any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can
>> survive with a digital brain "qua computatio", the physics can be recovered
>> from UD and the modal logic.
>> the speculative covers only the "yes doctor", and the Church thesis (and
>> thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis).
>> Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get
>> already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic
>> of knowledge, observation, and sensations.
>> The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult,
>> but the contrary would have been astonishing.
>> Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does
>> not succeed in showing that it is a red herring?
> I think step 8 uses a false premise that one can anticipate all the
> counterfactual events. Or looked at another way, it implies that to show
> consciousness could be realized without physics requires creating a whole
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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.