On 11 February 2014 16:40, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > The claimed consequence is that consciousness can be instantiated by a > computation which requires no physical events. But I think what is shown > is that there can be a world including conscious beings which does not > require physical events in our world, i.e. they can be merely arithmetical > or Turing machince "events". In other words it is possible to simulate a > world with conscious beings. But that's not so surprising and doesn't > imply that physics in this world is derivative from arithmetic (but it > doesn't imply the contrary either). > > I'm not sure I see how you get the conclusion that such a thing can be simulated in our world (if we assume it's physical) ? The UDA could be run physically in our universe, but non "aphysically" (that I know of???)
> > It's all very well having reservations that X might make a difference, > but as Bruno keeps saying, show him where he's gone wrong so he can stop > worrying about comp and spend his time keeping bees instead! > > And I keep saying show me a significant prediction (not retrodiction) of > comp. > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-) (Sorry!) I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string theory retrodict the graviton or something, and everyone said that was a positive result? Well, Bruno's got qualia, apparently... -- 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.
