On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
> What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain
that allows you to say "I know"?
I'm just guessing but maybe the Neocortex because it's the
biggest anatomical difference between a cat's brain and mine.
But I do know one thing for certain, whatever part it is if it
evolved then it effects behavior; and if it effects behavior
then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just
intelligence.
John K Clark
Are you saying that there is no consciousness without
intelligence? I believe (up to here at least) consciousness can
exist minus intelligence.
Also, many things going on in the brain affect behaviour without
necessarily having any impact on consciousness at all.
I don't think the ability to say "I know (or believe) I am awake"
has anything to do with intelligence. But it does require
consciousness (even if asleep and dreaming that you said that.)
What I am driving at is that it is vaguely impossible to
understand anything 1p in a 3p manner.
I think that is based on an unexamined idea of "understand".
Suppose I could monitor your brain with a super-fMRI and after
long experimentation and mapping I could 'see' every thought,
including distinguishing which were conscious and which weren't.
And suppose using this information I could create a functional
model of your brain so that given the various inputs and
environmental effects, I could predict exactly what you would
think, at least a few minutes in advance. And further, using this
knowledge, I could use electrostimulation to cause you to have
specific thoughts. And having attained this level of knowledge of
many human brains, I can now make brains to order having various
characteristics: musical ability, empathy, humor,...
Now you will say I have not understood anything 1p (in fact my
model predicts you will), but I would reply, "OK, what else is
there to understand?"
The difference between being the one knowing that he is in
Washington and believing that he has a copy in Moscow with being
the one knowing that he is in Moscow and believing that he has a
copy in Washington.
That difference is easily modelled in the physics and the fact that
one will see Moscow and one will see Washington and each will
remember Helsinki. I don't understand what difference you think is
not understood.
The description you give is pure 3p symmetrical. But now you have
agreed that both diaries will describe an asymmetrical event: one will
contain I am in W and not in M, and the other will contain "I am in M
and not in W".
In the 3p view, the two diaries have not break the symmetry. But all
diaries describes the breaking of that symmetry.
You miss the experience of the guys, and the fact that if you believe
we are machine, then we have to justify the stability of the
observable from the solution of the measure problem, on the sigma_1
sentences (with oracles)
Once you take it into account you can, by some work, understand
that such a "soul", subject, person, is not that easily related to
a physical process. With comp, it is automatically related with
infinitely computations, and that leads to interesting problems in
math suggestion new ways to conceive the things rationally.
You miss, and perhaps David's too (?), the fact that above a
threshold of relative complexity, the lower level is not relevant
for the description of the higher level. It would be like asking
"why Obama has been elected?", and getting back the answer:
everything followed the SWE.
That's David's "explanation=elimination", not mine.
OK. It is the point I agree with you, which indeed makes comp closer
to "materialism type of reductionism", except it reduce everything to
your favorite universal number, and then describe the infinitely
complex relations that numbers can develop above their substitution
level, as from below they are confronted to a infinite sum of machine.
Then you miss the *key* thing (well for those interested in the
mind-body problem) that many people miss it; but not David. Nor the
Ancients. It the mode of the subject, the hero behind the mask. Who
is he?
The "modern" seems to want to eliminate it.
I want to show that it has no answer in the terms it is asked.
(smile). Well, here I agree with David.
Honestly, I think that is a physicalist prejudice. I think you are
just not really interested in that subject (pun included).
Thanks to incompleteness, machines already get refractory to that
elimination, and known the 1p-3p difference.
Here, it is that once you take the higher level description into
account, with their relative independence, you have also to take
into account their mode of relation with themselves and truth and
possibilities. As neither p, nor <>p follows from []p, by
incompleteness, important nuances follows in the way the machine
can explore the arithmetical reality.
It is non trivial and interesting because it reduces a part of the
mind-body problem into a "belief in body" problem, which can be
translated into arithmetic, and tested empirically. If that does
not match, classical comp is false.
We can also compare the introspective discourse of the ideally
correct universal machine about it and It self, and Self, with the
very diverse humans theologies. The universal machine seems to
agree with Lao-tseu that the wise stay mute. (making that task not
so easy, how to interview a mute machine?). Comp provides G, *and*
G* to solve that problem.
That pushes it off into the unprovable and therefore unknowable -
It is indeed unknowable in the Theaetetus sense, but that is what
forces me to put consciousness on the truth side, and not on the
representation, the senseful experience happens near the fixed point
of the representations.
which is exactly my point that is nothing left to understand which
is understandable.
Theoretical computer science provides ladder and lattices to climb on
the degrees of unsolvability, and many other hierarchies. Theoretical
"artificial" intelligence is mainly the study of the transfinite
fractals of the border of the universal machine ignorance. It is the
COBE of comp, for the measure problem.
I am an empiricist. The test is nature. I show that with comp, and the
classical definition, the "TOE" is in the mind of all universal
machine, and how they can access to its physics purely from inside.
It provides a different conception of reality capable of satisfying
both the rationalist and the mystic, even in the same person. A sort
of piece treatise, between the body []p and the soul []p & p.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
