On 10 May 2014, at 12:54, LizR 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) ?
Yes, the rest follows, but the negation of the rest follows too,
unless, like Peter Jones, you add a criterion of primitive physical
existence to what is needed for consciousness. But then the movie
graph can show that they attribute a magical role to that primitive
matter. The idea, for them, is that there is a primitive matter, and
that "the primitive character" is not Turing emulable. Still, they say
"yes" to the doctor, but only because their artificial brain will be
made of primitive matter. Unlike Craig, they don't ask for special
matter like carbon, but they do ask for some primitive matter. They
might ask for some God instead, of course. It is almost a use of
"matter" as a god for creating a gap in the explanation, and if
primitive matter existed, they can make that logical point. We cannot
prove them logically wrong, but with the MGA we can shows them to be
close to non-sense, especially if you can distinguish the evidence of
the reality of matter with (impossible) evidence for primitive matter.
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 [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.
