On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/9/2014 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Feb 2014, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/8/2014 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a
necessary side effect of intelligence. But I don't follow this:
it is a phenomena having some role, I would say, and so evolution
is just not a problem.
To say it has some role implies that there is a role apart from
the physics and the intelligent behavior. If it's a *necessary*
aspect of intelligence then it makes no sense to talk about it
having a role - its "role" is just another way of talking about
the intelligence.
I begin to suspect that this way of talking is a confusion between
provability (G) and truth (G*).
And that remark makes me think you are confusing mathematical
necessity with nomological necessity.
"mathematical necessity" is quite vague, but I can accept it is
approximated by G*. It is of course theory-related, and assume
classical mathematical theories.
"nomological necessity" will be given by Z1* (or S4Grz1, or X1*).
At the start we are agnostic about Nature, primitve matter, and thus
nomological necessity. Then it is explained by the way we recover
nature from the FPI on UD* or arithmetic.
So you might be right, but only in God's eye. Like the lawyer might
be right: the murderer just obeyed to the laws of physics or
arithmetic.
But this does not mean that free-will or responsibility, and a role
for consciousness or conscience, do not exist, as we don't live at
the G* level.
Sure. And we don't live at the elementary particle level either, so
we talk about tables and chairs and people, even if we think they're
made of quarks, electrons, and photons.
The lawyer defense will not work, because the jury can decide for
any punishment, and invoke that, them too, are only following the
laws of physics or arithmetic, and "following laws" become an empty
mantra, despite being true at some level.
G* proves epiphenomenalism ([]p & p is equivalent with []p for all
arithmetical p), but G, which represents the actual machine, cannot
prove that equivalence, and becomes inconsistent if it assumes it.
But can we prove the equivalence in the sense that physics proves
that atoms exist, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.
Physics provides only evidences and proves nothing about reality. Now,
in the Aristotelian theory of the Soul, you can say what you say
above, but then comp is wrong, as it is NOT compatible with
Aristotelian theology.
Bruno
Brent
G* proves ([]p & p) <-> []p
G does not not, as it would prove from that []f -> f, and the
machine would be able to prove its own consistency, which is
impossible for any correct, or just consistent, machine.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
