On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:53, [email protected] wrote:
I still remember back maybe in the 1990's, having to keep a sick
bucket nearby, for every tirme some daft comp scientist wheeled
himself out to say consciousness was purely about processing speed.
Remember that one? That was pretty big in its day. I remember the
same expressions and the solemnlu offered corrections every time I
pointed out it was just totally groundless and thoughtless. Same
corrections "This would seem to suggest not-comp"
?
Not sure I relate. What I have often explained, is that one role of
consciousness, in the Löbian theory of mind, is that consciousness can
speed-up computations. But in that context, consciousness is
approximated by the bet on self-consistency, or self-correctness, and
handled mathematically. That result is related to Gödel's length of
proof theorem, or Blum speed theorem and its generalization on
"creative and subcreative" sets of numbers. In fact, self-speedability
characterize subcreativity.
Then - the notion of Computation being intrinsically conscious - a
basic assaumption that I'[d call a major recurrent theme of
computionralism over a pretty long period. A lot o.f your friends
have said they buy it. Russll has said it a few times.
yes, sure. You must not take those expression literally. There are
shorthand for not repeating the whole UDA, all the time. Conceptually
it is an error if youy mean it literally, as no 3p object can think,
it can only supports a thinking person, with some probabilities
relatively to a universal environment.
That one seems quiety dropped now. But for old time's sake Bruno,
hand on heart, was that something you were saying too? If the answer
is paradoxical then how about coming out against it...is that
something you also did?
There is nothing paradoxical. That is the type of thing which became
intuitively clearer once we distinguish the 1p and the 3p.
Then it became mathematically clear in the math part, but this
requires more work.
ou...
It just cannot be the right way to go about things....or maybe these
two instances aren't tycical of what you do, If they were, it'd
quickly become meaningless what you thought you had been shown
right about in the fullness of time, how consistently you'd held
onto a key set of ideas, how rigourous you thought your logic was.
All of require the same things you can be shown right about, to show
you wrong about also,
You lost me, here. That's really not clear. it looks again like a
critic, but without any specific points. Start from the paper, and try
to understand, or tell me anything that you would not understand, and
I will explain.
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/d/optout.
