On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, [email protected] wrote:
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it
is? If its exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return
to normal until all the REM is made up for)
i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
heavy lifting goes on? Why aren't we conscious in our other organs
where sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
experiencing the consciousness of the code? What decides what
object and experiences what consciousness, and why is that stable?
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
software, such that the experience is able to think the next
thought? The processor? RAM?
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness
would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of
our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the
past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little
consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why
is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done
on the footprint issue?
A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.
And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of
the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.
I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic
suggest the following answer.
Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.
Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as
elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and any universal system
will do. It is computer science: what can a machine prove, know,
observe, and feel about itself.
What happens is that any honest universal machine searching the truth
is confronted at the start with "conflicting ways" to "experience" it.
You get them from arithmetic by defining them by using the Theaetetus
definition of knowledge (true justified belief), and its weakening
(consistent, consistent and true) variant.
Consciousness, like truth, remains undefinable by the correct machine,
but can be approximated by level of self-knowledge and ignorance
awareness.
More on this in my explanation to Liz. The interest in comp is not in
its (plausible or not) truth, but it is in the fact that it makes
possible to translate the problem in arithmetic.
Hard science indeed. Risk of head explosion.
With p arithmetic and sigma_1 (and free or true)
p truth
[]p beliefs
[]p & p knowledge
[]p & <>p observations
[]p & <>p & p sensations
provides 8 "person pov" that you can attribute to the universal number
defining the "[]".
8, because three of them splits into effective and non effective part
"yet true".
(So that theory explains something about consciousness by relating a
correct "obvious" part to non justifiable truth) (It makes also
consciousness into a fixed point of the doubt, like in Descartes).
You must study a bit of computer science and mathematical logic, and
philosophical logic, to see that with Gödel's discovery, we have
discovered a person, and infinitely of them, in arithmetic.
You ask question, but are you ready to listen to an answer?
In this case the answer is that truth is in your head, but if you are
lazy you can program a universal machine to look for you. But then
again, the question will be "will you listen to the machine?".
You need to listen to their silence, also, sometimes justified,
sometimes not.
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 [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
