On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 03:30:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 17 Sep 2014, at 05:46, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > I tend to think that thermostat are not conscious. They are not > universal. >
So adding a universal machine to a thermostat makes it conscious? The Nest smart sensors are conscious? Forgive my chortle. > > > > > >... > > > >> > >>I agree that to have awareness, you need a self, a third person > >>self. But that is well played by the relative body (actually bodies, > >>incarnate through the UD). > >> > >>Maybe we should define consciousness by self-awareness, and then > >>self-consciousness would be the higher form of self-self-awareness? > >>That makes one "self" per reflexive loop. > >> > > > >What's the distinction? > > Between what? Consciousness (self-awareness) needs, as you say, a > self. Self-consciousness (self-self-awareness) needs not only a > self, but an awareness that there is a self. The distinction is that > in the first case we don't have Kp -> KKp. It is the difference > between universal and Löbian, or between Robinson Arithmetic (RA) > and Peano Arithmetic (PA). technically, universality implies the > existence of one reflexive loop, and Löbianity gives the cognitive > faculty of being able to know our own universality. > OK - you've clarified your terminology, but I think it is nonstandard. Self-aware means "aware of your self". One could say self-conscious as being "conscious of your self", except that I don't think there is any distinction in meaning between awareness and consciousness. BTW - conceptually, I don't see any inherent reason why a self is needed just to be aware (or conscious), except that a self is a bloody useful thing, evolutionarily speaking - helps the immune system stop parasites and pathogens, for example - also helps you stop injuring your body (see what happens to people who lose their sense of touch, or their proprioception or nociception (pain)). > > > >I address this in the paper. > > But my comment sum up where I disagree. I will comment more > precisely when I have more times. > > > > >What you go on to say that consciousness > >C (ie the consciousness attached to body C, which is in B) supervenes > >on B+A, which is correct. > > OK, so you agree that Alice's consciousness supervenes on Alice's > body + Bob's body + the room + the entire universe + the entire UD*. > OK? > > > > > > >But my point is that consciousness itself > >(not necessarily attached to a particular body or person) > > You mean the existence of consciousness? > > > > >is not > >supervenient on B+A in this case, as the consciousness could be a C or > >a D (where D supervenes on A). > > ? > I agree, (assuming always some neuro-assumption to make things > simple) that Alice's consciousness does not supervene on Bob's brain > activity, but it does supervenes on Alice + Bob brains activities. > > > > > > >Where this matters is that one cannot say consciousness supervenes on > >the universal dovetailer. > > I really don't see this. That contradict the fact that if A > supervenes on B, it supervenes on A+B. > > If Alice consciousness supervenes on say one computation in the UD*, > it supervenes on that computation + all the others. > The computation here is the UD. If Alice experiences a different thought, then the UD does not change, as the UD calculates that experience too. Consequently, Alice's consciousness cannot supervene on the UD itself. Only on some computations that the UD executes. Assuming COMP, of course. Maybe the classroom analogy is not clearly enough expressed, because you still say Alice's consciousness, not consciousness (in general) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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 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.
