On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical
realism in
the sense required for this argument. I think consciousness
depends of
consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about
Peano's
arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
"ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous. There are
obvious
physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be
ineffable. That's
why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of
arithmetic?)
are possible independent of any external world - or looked at
another way,
I think to make it work would require that the 'inert'
computation simulate
a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist
*relative* to
that world.
Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the
initial
assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.
Exactly. One may still say yes to the doctor who give you an
artificial brain that functions within this world (and cannot be the
'inert' brain of step 8).
?
I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.
If you accept AR *and* the identification of "unprovable
arithmetical truth"="qualia"
I have never identify qualia and "unprovable arithmetical truth".
Qualia are defined by possible semantics bearing on the logic of
certain unprovable arithmetical truth". That is very different.
technically, you confuse G* and Z*; Z1*, etc.
then it is relevant because a computer can, with the right program,
recognize unprovable truths and therefore have ineffabel qualia.
But I see no reason to accept this identification.
It follows from UDA. Then AUDA isolated the logic, by studying the
logic of the "probability one".
Bruno
The only thing they have in common is that they are inexpressible in
their respective domains.
Brent
I'm not yet convinced it is a genuine problem for step 8, or not,
as I still
don't feel I fully understand what that says yet.
Cheers
--
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.
