On 23 Sep 2014, at 16:57, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-09-23 16:20 GMT+02:00 John Clark <[email protected]>:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Matter is a possible means to implement universal machine. That is
of course in need to be explained when we assume comp.
And this is a example of why I'm so certain that regardless of what
you say "comp" is NOT just a abbreviation for computationalism.
Computationalism says that consciousness is what matter does when it
is organized in certain ways
No, that's not computationalism... that's functionalism.
Or phsyicalist functionalism. because stathis suggest a
mathematicalist form of functionalism, where the function and
subroutibe cold be arbitrary function, on natural or real numbers.
Computationalism involve computations...
That's the key part missing in John's definition. Then "computable
function" is a notion that you can define in elementary arithmetic.
What would be a physical definition of computations? perhaps "a
rational unitary transformation"? But with comp this has to be
justified by a statistics on machine points of view on the relative
sigma_truth.
Consciousness could come from matter organized in certain ways
without being the result of a computation. So no, computationalism
is not "consciousness is what matter does when it is organized in
certain ways".
Indeed. After UDA, people can still save the idea that consciousness
is matter organized in a certain ways by using non computable
functions, or actual infinities, a bit like in the "naive religions".
I think that "primitive materialism" is a naive religion itself. We
might to need things like that eventually, but it is unscientific to
assume things like that by sheer wishful thinking.
Bruno
Quentin
and we could prove that proposition the same way we could prove any
2 things are equivalent. When we change the ways the neurons in our
brain operate (through chemicals or electricity or physical movement
etc) our consciousness changes, AND when our consciousness changes
we also note that the way our neurons work changes. Therefore nobody
needs to assume computationalism because we already know for a fact
that it's true, and yet you constantly tell us that we must "assume
comp" therefore despite your protests to the contrary I must
conclude that whatever "comp" means it's not computationalism.
Nothing personal but when you say one thing and logic says something
else I must side with logic.
John K Clark
--
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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
