On 08 Mar 2014, at 14:07, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno - I read below but am answering here. You're sincere and
I'm not getting my single point across to you. I'm about done trying
I think. I've taken a lot of value from the process and it's shame
if you haven't but sincerity was all round.
Well, I was hoping for specific remarks. I am just trying to
understand what you say.
In my view, it doesn't stack up building a specific digital,
specific software/hardware, prefixed conception into computationalism
But that is fuzzy. Where wold I built a specific digital soft/
hardware? What are the prefixed conception of computationalism?
when so little is known about consciousness.
But we will never lean more about consciousness, if you defeat a theoy
because it is done without us knowing more.
Actually we will never lean more about anything, if you defeat a
theory because it is done without us knowing more that thing.
Your emark simply does not make sense, or I miss it completely, and
you might elaborate.
There are other ways that computationalism can be true and yet have
mind blowing surprises in store for the nature of what it is.
?
But the computationalist assumption I am using is the weaker one I
know of. What do you mean?
You don't agree. You think comp is owned by the theses you give to it.
Please, if you have another comp hypothesis, not entailed by "my
comp", can you show it precisely?
You think the brain and consciousness is just a technicality despite
knowing almost nothing about it, and being unable to give a
satisfying explanation of it.
Can you tell me what is lacking?
UDA = submission of a big problem for the computationalist. So big
that without AUDA, we might considered it as close to a refutation of
comp.
AUDA then shows more technically that both theoretical computer
science and quantum mechanics rescue comp from that "refutation". Comp
predicts the statistical interference of many computations, and QM
confirms this. Comp predicts a weird quantum logic for the observable,
and QM confirms this.
That's your right and your theory.
UDA worlds for all theories, and with some works, it can be shown to
work on quite weakening of comp.
AUDA gives not my theory of everything, but the universal machine's
theory of everything. it is a matter of work to verify his, not a
matter of philosophical appreciation.
A view like that is not something I will ever relate to, but nor do
I have a problem.with coexisting alongside.
I suppose I'll draw a line provocatively by asking whether a complex
protein....so precisely dependent on a 3D structure, is computational?
Well, IF proteins are not Turing emulable, and IF their non-
computability has some role in our consciousness, then comp is just
false, and we are out of the scope of my expertise; say.
(to be franc, I don't know any evidence that proteins are not
computable, as they obeys to the computable solutions of the SWE).
The gene is,
Well, gene are also 3D. I doubt that genes are really more easy to
handle than protein.
I have work on both genes and proteins when working, for years, for a
society in biotechnology. It is very complex, OK, but it is quite a
jump to invoke non computability here.
but is the protein? And if the answer is yes, how much code would be
necessary to capture all the structure relationships.
In the reasoning, what matters is that the code and its execution
appears in UD* or arithmetic.
It does not matter if you need 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^100000))))
terrabytes to encode the protein.
A gene just builds it, doesn't run it. Why is it ruled out
effectively, that computation in 3D reality uses 3D reality,
structure, as computation? Because it's faster and m ore elegant
and Occam simpler, makes use of the dimensionality and materials
that define the reality. If it was digital computing, it would have
surely made that our reality too
?
That's where I'm at,. And if that's saying no to your doctor, it's
definitely saying yes to mine.
So you do say "yes" to the doctor?
But then the conclusion follows logically. You just seem to put the
level very low, but that does not invalidate the reasoning. The
reasoning works even if the only way to emulate your "brain" correctly
consists in emulating the entire universe.
And I think I own comp, not you.
I don't own comp. Comp is just Mechanism, and appears already in old
Indians texts. Then the discovery of the universal machine, and Church
thesis, has been a scientific breakthrough, that I exploit to prove a
theorem.
I have no theory, only a theorem with its proof, and it is up to you
to find a (real) flaw, if you want to convince us that the theorem
does not follow from the premises.
I'm right, not you.
?
But in end the question of comp and consciousness will not be
resolved by debate and persuasion...not for the majority of people.
Right. That is why I tackle all this with the "scientific
method" (hypothetico-deductive reasoning, experimental test, peer
reviews, conferences, etc.).
I'm afraid you lost me. I don't see any argument in your talk which
would point on a flaw somewhere.
Only hard discovery and breakthrough progress will settle it.
Well, I cannot really brag on this, but frankly that is what I am
supposed to have done.
I assume comp, not because I would believe it to be true, but only
because it makes possible to use computer science to reason from it
rigorously (UDA), and constructively (AUDA).
I have made comp + classical theory of knowledge 100% testable. Just
implement Z1*, and compare with some empirical quantum logic.
And that's the way it should be, and always has been. In Science.
I agree. No problem with this.
It just seems to me that you are not addressing the derivation, nor
the math, only something I feel not related too. You might try to
focus on something more specific.
Bruno
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
