On 18 Sep 2014, at 17:12, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> If there is not a relationship between consciousness and
smartness then Darwin was wrong,
> Proof?
FOR GOD'S SAKE! For the last several years in post after post after
post after post I have been explaining in detail exactly why there
MUST be a relationship between intelligence and consciousness or
Darwin's theory was wrong.
And I answered, sometimes with details, that this was assuming
physical supervenience, and that is not compatible with
computationalism.
In some post you have acknowledge that consciousness is not something
located in a brain. Two identical brains in different space-time
locations will determine (assuming computationalism, c, hereafter to
be short) the same consciousness.
A universal machine cannot distinguish a "physical reality" (and what
that means?) from an arithmetical reality, so the consciousness (the
token consciousness "here and now" of someone) is related to all
number relations defining a genuine computation, that is the one going
through the state in question, at or below the correct substitution
level.
In that "model" (the computationalist theory and its consequence,
without a magic God or Matter) darwinian evolution theory can still
explain the origin of *human consciousness*, where the human brain
( which themselves come from those stories/computations winning some
measure compitation with all computations), but the explanation
assumes consciousness being already there, in its multiple forms
"statistically" in the arithmetical reality. The Darwinian Theory just
explain how the consciousness differentiate in those histories.
In that picture, the brain, or any universal number, is more a filter
of consciousness, particularizing a universal person into particular
person in some context.
If you disagree then show me the point in my reasoning where you
think I made an error
You are using an identity thesis which is not consistent with
computationalism, even with your own understanding of it, as you said
that consciousness is not localized in the brain.
This is natural with computationalisme, as consciousness has to be
related from number relations and the fact that some are true,
knowable (in some sense) and unjustifiable (my axiomatic definition of
consciousness in a large sense).
and we'll discuss it, and who knows maybe we'll even come to some
sort of agreement.
Who knows?
But please, don't just make the "Proof?" noise like a parrot.
> Nor is there any evidence that computationalism, and its
consequences are wrong.
That is 100% true.
Hmm... I agree, because I think the quantum wave collapse is nonsense.
If not, just non locality can be taken as an evidence that c is false,
or that we are in a simulation "faking" a non comp theory and
infinitely updated by daemons, etc.
> Indeed many aspect of the quantum reality, which is weird for an
Aristotlian,
Even Newtonian physics is weird for an Aristotelian because
Aristotle was the worst physicists who ever lived.
No, it is not weird. It is the same philosophy/metaphysics/theology.
Aristotle makes the inevitable errors of the pionniers, and get
corrected on the physical level, not on the metaphysical level, used
by the materialist, naturalist believers.
The quantum and/or computationalism go deeper. They suggest a
universal dreamer lost in the arithmetical realities, capable of
awakening and relative awakenings, instead of a creator and a
creation. The physical becomes only a type of persistent
hallucinations that universal machines cannot avoid for temporary
periods.
To sum up a bit crudely.
> is natural and justified for a computationalist (which has to be
platonist, at least arithmetical platonist).
I don't think so. As Niels Bohr, the greatest physicist of the 20th
century after Einstein,
You astonish me. I would reserve my judgment on a guy who refuse to
even talk with Everett, and is, indeed the main one responsible for
the most irrational "axiom" in science: the wave packet reduction,
which Feynman called, btw, a collective hallucination. With
computationalism, the universal wave has to be like that too, except
as a map in the winning multidreams structure on arithmetic.
said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood
it".
Yes, that's a good one. Others said also that anyone trying to
understand it lost its time, but that's does not follow.
Unlike relativity which could have been discovered 300 years ago
just by thinking (provided you were smart enough) no philosopher or
physicist would EVER come up with a idea as crazy as Quantum
Mechanics if they weren't forced to do so by exparament.
I came to it just asking myself what it is like to be an amoeba. Then
reading the nagel & newman I understood we can't avoid the infinity of
dreams in arithmetic, and that the beliefs in the physical laws must
be extracted from a statistic on the computations (in arithmetic, or
in any first order logical specification of a Turing-complete theory).
You don't like Aristotle, but for a Platonist QM is rather natural,
if not obvious. The original Aristotle *was* Platonist. It is natural
that matter involves indeterminacies for him. It is also the "bastard
calculus" in Plato's Timeaeus, or the non-justifiability (~[], <>~) in
Plotinus. I find not unplausible that the greeks would have come up
with QM, or good approximation of it, much before the physicists if
theology could have remained in the academy, in +500, instead of being
sold to the politics.
With computationalism, it is just *more* obvious, the quanta, and the
continuum, but also the qualia, is a part of the digital observed from
the digital.
Bruno
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.
