On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 May 2014 22:12, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I guess one could start from "is physics computable?" (As Max Tegmark >>>>> discusses in his book, but I haven't yet read what his conclusions are, if >>>>> any). If physics is computable and consciousness arises somehow in a >>>>> "materialist-type way" from the operation of the brain, then consciousness >>>>> will be computable by definition. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is that trivially obvious to you? The anti-comp crowd claim that even >>>> if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer >>>> could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not >>>> just a simulation, to generate the consciousness. >>>> >>>> If physics is computable, and consciousness arises from physics with >>> nothing extra (supernatural or whatever) then yes. Am I missing something >>> obvious? >>> >> >> Yeah, I always feel the same about this sort of argument. It seems so >> trivial to disprove: >> >> "even if brain behaviour is computable that does not mean that a computer >> could be conscious, since it may require the actual brain matter, and not >> just a simulation, to generate the consciousness." >> >> 1. If brain behaviour is computable and (let's say comp) >> 2. brain generates consciousness but >> 3. it requires actual brain matter to do so then >> 4. brain behaviour is not computable (~comp) >> >> so comp = ~comp >> >> I also wonder if I'm missing something, since I hear this one a lot. >> >> OK, but if *physics* is computable then the rest follows (doesn't it) ? >
Of course, but sometimes people claim that physics is not computable but the brain (at the substitution level that generates consciousness) is. Even with this weaker assumption, rejecting strong AI is absurd as per above. Of course it's not absurd under other assumptions, but we're discussing the materialist position here. Cheers Telmo. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
