On 29 March 2014 05:15, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28 Mar 2014, at 00:00, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > On 28 March 2014 09:51, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I would say there is only a finite number of possible biological human >>> minds, >>> >> >> Because the number is limited by the Beckenstein bound if we assume >> physical supervenience ? >> >> >>> but an infinite number of possible minds if you are running them on the >>> Turing machine in Platonia. >>> >> >> (Or an infinite number of Turing machines, according to comp ;-) >> >> Does comp suggest that consciousness corresponds to an infinite number of >> different possible mental states (rather than a very large, but finite, >> number of them) ? >> >> (If so should I assume we're talkng about a countable infinity?) >> >> I think you have to specify whether comp means merely that a computer > simulation of a brain can be conscious or go the whole way with Bruno's > conclusion that there is no actual physical computer and all possible > computations are necessarily implemented by virtue of their status as > platonic objects. > > > > It is not so much in virtue of their status as platonic object (which > seems to imply some metaphysical hypothesis), but in virtue of being true > independently of my will, or even of the notion of universe, god, etc. >
But there is the further notion of implementation. The obvious objection is that computations might be "true" but they cannot give rise to consciousness unless implemented on a physical computer. Step 8 of the UDA says the physical computer is not necessary; which is a metaphysical position if anything is. > You need just to assume, or accept as true, relations like x + 0 = x, for > all x, etc. It is a very weak form of realism, and basically, this is > assumed by all scientists. > > *After* UDA, the assumptions are no more than classical logic and , for > all x and y: > > 0 ≠ (x + 1) > ((x + 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y > x + 0 = x > x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 > x * 0 = 0 > x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x > > The boxes and diamond are defined in that theory, the "theology and > physics" is derived in the extensions of that theory (the observers) > simulated by that theory. > > There are many other equivalent theories. > > There are some metaphysical or theological consequences, clear with comp, > but except for the "yes doctor", there is no special ontological commitment > done, not even on the numbers, that is no more than in Euclid proofs of the > infinity of the prime numbers. > > The computations are implemented in virtue of the consequences of the > axioms above. > > Bruno > > > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > 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. > > > 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. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
