On 14 Aug 2014, at 10:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with you in general, but I can agree a little bit with Liz
too, as I find Brent slightly sneaky on this issue, but all in all
Brent is rather polite and seems sincere. Yet his critics (of step
8) is not that clear. But then that is why we discuss. Anyone seeing
Brent's point can help to make it clearer.
His point is that he doesn't believe input free computations can be
conscious
But it is a most fundamental principle in computer science that you
can always internalize the input.
From the program Factorial, you can build (uniformly for all programs
and inputs, for any number of inputs) a program Factorial5 which on no
input computes the factorial of 5.
Each night we do dreams, with input having been internalized, or are
recreated to mimic correct referent.
If the environment is needed, we might add it in the "generalized
brain", that will not invalidate the reasoning, as long as we keep
comp (so that the environment is preserved itself by a digital
emulation at some level, if that is not the case, we go out of the
scope of our working hypothesis.
- there must always be some referrent to the environment
(which is noisy, counterfactual, etc). If so, it prevents the MGA, and
Maudlin's argument, from working.
I guess for Brent that even dream states still have some referrent to
the environment, even if it be some sort of random synaptic noise.
In all case the referents can be internalized, even the infinite
streams, on which the UD dovetails.
From the first person view, they cannot, the domain of indeterminacy
seems to be at least 2^aleph_0. We need a topology (provided by G,
S4Grz, ..) and a proximity space (also provided by those logics, on p
sigma_1). The first person is by defaut connected to a random oracle,
which is the FPI on all its emulation in the sigma_1 arithmetic.
Brent seems to assume those "physical environment" (what are there,
really?) to abort an explanation of the origin of their appearance and
their relative stability from simpler principles,
like Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz).
Brent tries valiantly to resist the charm of computationalism :)
It is a different theology. Instead of a creation, with or without a
creator, we have a universal dreamer losing itself again and again in
an infinite web of dreams, and it looks structured like in Plotinus,
so a sort of Abramanic god is not excluded, like an *apparent* stable
aristotelian matter is not excluded. We are at the beginning, so of
course, there are not much things we can exclude from that theology,
except a classical boolean matter or any institutionalization of the
unnameable. That excludes proselytism for example, but comp excludes
all public pretension or claim to truth in general.
Bruno
Bruno
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
