On 19 Aug 2014, at 08:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
On 18 August 2014 23:27, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not entirely clear on Bruno's argument on this last point. The way
I see it, if a brain is simulated by a computer program, what is being
simulated is the physics; and if comp is true, that means that
simulating the physics will also reproduce the brain's consciousness.
I'm not sure about computations instantiating consciousness without
instantiating physics, and I'm not sure how instantiating the
appearance of physics is different to instantiating (virtual) physics.
I've always understood him to be saying, in the first place, that
the dovetailer necessarily generates certain classes of self-
referential computations. Very generally, such computations are then
regarded as emulating self-referred (i.e. first-personal or
indexical) logics that in turn are amenable to treatment as
"beliefs" in realities or appearances. So the idea is that comp
necessarily entails epistemological logics (the "dreams of the
machines") that are *prior* to physics in the sense that only
certain sub-classes will be characterised by the statistical
dominance of physically-lawlike relations over their range of
reference. I've always assumed that it's this logical priority of
"machine psychology" over the subsequent appearance of lawlike
physical relations that constitutes the postulated "reversal".
What we know is that the brain can generate consciousness. The brain
is not a digital computer running a program, but if it can be
simulated by one, and if the simulation is conscious, and if the
program can be "run" in Platonia rather than on a physical computer,
then every possible brain's consciousness will necessarily be
instantiated. I'm not sure whether self-referential computations on
their own are conscious - that would seem a further assumption on
top of the three mentioned in the previous sentence - even though it
does seem more elegant than simulating klunky brains.
OK. Self-reference is used informally in the UDA, to make sense of
"yes doctor" and the other questions about teletransport and
duplication, etc. And in AUDA, the 3-self is based on the computer
science approach to the notion of self (like the object SELF in
Smalltalk, but more or less implicit in all universal languages). The
3p self is defined with the diagonal trick: Dx produces "xx" => DD =
"DD".
For the 1p self, there is no such method possible, but we can use
Theatetus's definition of the arithmetical provability/rational-
justifiability notion, or any effective consistent extensions of it.
Bruno
--
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.
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.
