On 8/13/2014 7:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Does Bruno actually say what he thinks consciousness is? (This is probably somewhere
beyond the MGA, which is where I tend to get stuck...)
When I've asked directly what it would take to make a robot conscious, he's said
Lobianity. Essentially it's the ability to do proofs by mathematical induction and
prove Godel's theorem. But "ability" seems to be just in the sense of potential, as a
Turing machine has the ability to compute anything computable.
That is what you need for your robot being able to be conscious. OK. But to be
conscious, you need not just the machine/man, but some connection with god/truth.
To put is roughly the believer []p is never conscious, it is the knower []p & p who is
conscious. It is very different: []p can be defined in arithmetic. []p & p cannot be
defined in arithmetic, or in the machine's language.
But that's just an abstract definition. What is the operational meaning of "p". If
consciousness depends on knowing and knowing depends of my belief being true, then I will
be unconscious if my belief is mistaken. That makes no sense. Consciousness obviously
does not depend on "& p". In my view consciousnees is creating an internal mode of the
world. The model includes propositions "p" which are more or less true depending on their
correspondence with the world. Operationally this means they have consistency and
predictive power.
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.
