On 19 May 2014, at 05:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2014 6:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]
> wrote:
So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
the scientific sense. No one calls you
on this.....here.....but then
again.....let's face it no one answered my question either. But
other there....all you'll accomplish with this hubris is to be
ignored and written off. Which you probably are, by and large.
And...I wanted to add value for you....for my part I would actually
question the way your friends write you a pass about this, because
this is one tiny goldfish bowl dude.
I don't think Bruno claims to have a testable scientific theory. He
claims to have a logical argument applied to the assumption made by
most scientists who believe in primary materialism - that
consciousness is computable. Given this assumption and a couple of
others, he argues to a certain conclusion, which is that primary
materialism fails.
Not that it fails, but that it's dispensable; that matter may be
necessary for our existence (when I've argued for that point I think
he has agreed) but if so it is derivable from the computations of
the UD, so it's not primary. I'm not sure he's wrong, but I'm not
convinced by his MGA or Maudlin's Olympia argument. I think that
for them to go through, to show that consciousness can be
instantiated with no physical action, depends on anticipating all
possible counterfactuals, i.e. simulating a "world" which the
consciousness is relative to.
But that is done in sigma_1 arithmetic, and also in the universal
Everett wave.
I think that to simulate consciousness within a simulated world
removes the distinction of "simulated" and the argument becomes
vacuous. Simulated physics is happening in that simulated world and
the simulated consciousness depends on it. Now if Bruno can predict
some new testable physics from comp, that would be great - but
that's a high bar indeed.
Physics is qZ1*. See my reply to Liz.
His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that
problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to
make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or
disadvantages of doing so.
Here the answer is that universal machine are conscious (even in a
sort of vacuous way: their are born enlightened, with a minimal
"brain" not filtering realities so much. Then Löbian machine are in
that state, but with higher cognitive ability, and they are self-
conscious.
Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious,
which might be testable -
Indirectly, by testing the comp physics. Consciousness is not testable
(with certainty) per se.
but I think it would fail. I think that might be necessary for
consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must be
intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that
it's intelligent.
No. You can be conscious and be in a comatose state. From outside,
some neurophysiologist might bet that you are conscious (using some
EEG, and comparison with the EEG of people conscious and not
comatose), but not from the behavior of the person.
"intelligent" is an extremely fuzzy word. I do have different
theories. That "intelligence" is just <>t, and so a stupid machine is
just a machine which asserts that she (or any machine) is stupid or
that she (or any machine) is intelligent. Another theory is that we
are born intelligent, and become stupid once adult.
In the first theory, intelligence is more an attitude, indeed the
attitude of being cautious not to judge oneself and other machine for
that. Intelligence has a positive feedback on competence (which is
measurable but domain dependent), but competence has a negative
feedback on intelligence (some competent people will confuse their
competence with their intelligence).
Words like intelligent and stupid are mainly used as flatteries and
insults. If you want make a child never succeeding anything, just tell
him that he is stupid repeatedly. It is auto-prophetic. It is
manipulation. Then some people are slow, quick, talented, in this or
that domain, but that is not intelligence, it is differences, simply.
Bruno
Brent
Hence surely he is in the position of someone testing a scientific
theory, rather than claiming to have one?
--
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 everything-
[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.
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.
