Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 May 2014, at 02:59, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:13:38 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LizR <liz...@gmail.com>
> To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
>
> On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List  
&lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com
> &gt; wrote:
>  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
> the scientific sense.


Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is
wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its
logic of the observable) and its actual testing?

Because you don't have one.


But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional  
physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.

So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean  
logic, like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.

And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people  
using the quantum facts to argue against mechanism.

The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable,  
and infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more  
complex.

If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in  
the field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of  
the possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the  
structure of the computations going through our states  
(computational states), and so that logic is determined by the  
mental ability of the universal machine. Mathematically, we can  
limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) beliefs, like 0+x =  
x, etc.






Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work?


Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the  
physics of the machines.

Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics  
that I do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics  
collapse into boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have  
been refuted, or show trivial, and QM would have been refuted  
altogether, at least as a physical laws. The real physics would be  
boolean, and QM would only describe a subpart of it.

Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts  
or retrodicts that the observable
have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like  
logic. It predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian"  
under a symmetry conditions.

It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it,  
but that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to  
solve to progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is  
had, and I have done the best I could. A student and friend of mine,  
the late Eric Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.

And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics,  
which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My  
interest is in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.






If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one.  
But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory.


They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or  
bad luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is  
exactly the quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that.
And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the  
origin of the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that  
where UDA and machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we  
find quantum logic.

If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum  
QL, well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.

Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more  
axioms, and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new  
theorems and new physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is  
not just the classical knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*)  
have axioms inherited from the Löb formula, from which we get  
information not available. In their first order arithmetical  
extensions, there is an infinities of such information.

Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.....I've  
no access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm  
concerned a 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and  
private. Like fight club geezer...that silly film: what happens on  
everything list, stays on everything list. My blood my pledge!  
Seriously....I'm always aware arguing with you in this long running  
way, of your experiences you shared about psycho stalkers and such  
like. Well that ain't me geezer :o) I come from the harder  
fraternity of, in the morning "forgive 'em...or kill 'em". Just  
kidding obviously, but even if I wasn't...there's definitely  
nothing...nothing...that anyone can say or do on a list that  
wouldn't qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.....I don't know about  
you but I agree with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this  
list...or how it looks.....which speaking of killing  
people.....you'd have to kill someone here to get a ban from  
Russell, so it looks.
Always a risk with you...your French.....you'll not take something  
the right way. Do me a favour and get Kim to translate for you if  
you've any concerns :O)

No but....I believe in what I believe, and I'm only interested in  
you because of the things that I think make us similar or see things  
the same way. I might never mention them, and only what I don't  
agree...but that's how it works for my little brain to learn. Very  
long winded and slow but it's the only way I have. I think you're  
right about a lot of things. I think you're wrong about the  
falsification thing, but I'm just going to file that now where I  
filed the cannabis issue. We've been through it. Time for bed now  
that one.

But you don't comment any of my answers. The falsification issue is  
factual. You might criticize the translation of the UDA in  
arithmetic, but you can't deny that I gave a a clear way to test the  
final TOE

I haven't denied or openly doubted you see a test in the future.

So you denied the factual fact that it has already been tested?

You say you have not the skill to understand the Arithmetical UDA, and  
then you contest a technical point, which simply contradicts facts.

That is just bad philosophy.

Also, we can't test a *final* TOE. Test can only refute a theory, not  
show it being true.






But...most things predict things in one sense or another. Where we  
disagree is on whether 'falsifiability' is open to variants such  
that, if someone can formulate a form of words involving some sort  
of test in the faR say they see a clear future way to test their  
theory, or a conviction of a clear way to test a final toe.

This is all an earlier stage than falsifiability.

Some tests have been done in the past. Most people around me,  
including me, predicted that it would be test wrong, but amazingly,  
the test confirms the classical comp theory.
Infinities of possible test can still be done.

You have never answer my question: do you agree that Quantum Logic is  
empirical, so that the comp quantum logic (which is axiomatized at the  
propositional level through a decidable theory) can be compared to  
quantum logic, and that constitutes a scheme of test (many already  
done) of the consequence of the classical computationalist theory.




I sent that by accident.

I was going to add that I haven't been commenting on answers you  
make that basically ignore what I explained falsification actually  
was, and why I thought it was like that. It doesn't seem worthwhile  
addressing your answer if all I'm going to be doing is explaining,  
again, what falsification is, and why what you are talking about is  
a hoped for future test. Which just about every theory in the world  
can hope for as well.


But I don't see how the tests (already done) are not of your  
falsification type. I thought you were just abandoning what you claim,  
by admitting you don't understand the technical part of the work.






and all you're going to reply with, is ignoring what I said...not  
addressing what your 'falsification' seems actually to imply.

Explain me why you doubt that the falsification procedure given does  
not statisfy your criteria.




That science happens easily...that basically it's no different than  
philosophy, or not that I can see based on your 'prediction'.

I think I've done most of the work up to now. I don't think it's  
reasonable for you to expect me to engage your answers if they don't  
engage my question.

Your test ideas are also very vague,

How can you say this. It is 100% precise. You definitely show that you  
miss AUDA's functionning, and you even admit it. But to make a  
negative comment like you do, you have to prove it, and I guess to  
have a better understanding.





they aren't well thougtt through,

You keep doing vague comment, without ever addressing the work.




no one understands them well enough to endorse what your claiming  
that I have seen.

So you do propagate the rumor that there is something controversial.  
The theory has been tested and verify by enough academical people.  
Among people studying it, I know only philosophers argues against it,  
and this always only for reason of intimate conviction, which  are not  
part of the work.




Some of them are just daft Bruno..

Without saying which one, this looks negative for the pleasure of  
being negative.



like anyo wrne that tests phys s is testing your theory.

Notably, but only "notably". As I gave proper new test too, or means  
to isolate them.




That's exactly the sort of silly talk that really condemns you on  
this matter.

That means you did not really grasp the UDA itself.





finally, there's obvious wriggle room everywhere, if you ever did  
construct an actual test. Based on what I know of you and how you  
answer from here, I can see your adulation if a test was confirmed,  
but I don't see any possibility of a falsification event.

Just find a quantum logical proposition contradicted by the comp  
quantum logic. That is still possible.





You don't admit wrong, or even doubts or problems.

That is wrong. I was pretty sure that the theory would be refuted even  
before 2000.



I don't see you being up to acknowledging falsification.

?





sorry...I just have not seen that trait.

You probably think your ideas about souls and destinies of souls is  
testable as well.

Not in the same sense of the test for the comp quantum logic. But a  
part of it can be tested in the first person way, but that is  
different and is another topics.



Everyone's got a test....every idea has a prediction.

In physics, a test has to verify some very precise fact. You fail to  
understand the AUDA, and keep saying factually incorrect facts.



You want to call that a scientific falsification standard...I wish  
people wouldn't do this.to science. try to own it, change - soften  
typically - the definitions....get their theory in that way. deutsch  
does it...I mean that's all he's got....he's not even sincere about  
criticismI've never seen anyone do so much to shield his ideas from  
criticism. Your idea is t better than any of his, but you've got  
shared trait scretly thinking scientific discovery is easy to vary,  
easy to happen, easy to define and easy to dfine your own version  
of. You never seem to explain - or him - why only traditional hard  
science ever produced enduringly influential theories. Or him. Just  
bad luck I suppose everything else.

Not at all. The falsification criteria is the same here than anywhere  
else. You just misunderstand the technical part. You *want* it  
philosophical, but it is just the usual science in the sense of all  
scientists, and indeed no critics comes from there (except "I am not  
interested in that subject", which is common and fair enough).

Your critics does not even address the work. You might try to make  
specific points later, when I explain more on this, but my difficulty  
is that people does not know much on logic, and it is hard to sum up a  
course in logic in a forum discussion.

I have just no clue why you say what you say. It looks negative, but  
does not address what has been done.

The testability of the TOE obtained is factual. that was the object of  
the PhD thesis. I have heard of only one scientist doubting this, and  
when I asked him what was wrong, he answer me (seven years later) with  
a text which does not mention any results obtained, contain only act  
of faith in physicalism, full invalid arguments, etc. That text was so  
bad, that everyone urges me to just not answering it, as it was 100%  
self-defeating. There is a level of irrationality and bad faith which  
prevents any progress in the discussion, and you get closer and closer  
to it.

Explain me in *precise* sense why comparing the comp QL and the QM QL  
does not constitute a falsification-test of the TOE extracted from  
comp. I have really no idea what you are talking about, but suspect  
that you don't understand at all what is done in AUDA. I am here to  
answer question by people interested in the subject, not to defend a  
thesis already defended and verified by courageous people (courageous,  
as it asks for some amount of work in different disciplines). Don't  
escape this by going meta, please.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.