On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard, > > On 28 Nov 2014, at 19:19, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum > effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general > if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world, > maybe with a little fuzziness. > > > Classical, or quantum, will not change the fact that we must sum up on all > computations occurring in arithmetic. > I can understand the need for summation from the Many Histories (Feynman) quantum theory. But Bruno, I wonder why you say it is necessary. Does the summation requirement come from the arithmetic or the logic, or some other principle? > There is no quantum cloning (in arithmetic or in some quantum reality), > but there is still multiple preparation of the states, both in arithmetic > and in some possible quantum reality. > > Normally the quantum aspect of nature is due to the inside or internal > points of view in arithmetic, but of course this must be continually > verified. The verifications done so far confirm this. > > Bruno > > > > > > > Richard > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that >>> there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual >>> fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's >>> jump into the shoes of objective reality. >>> >> >> OK but remember you said "objective reality", Evolution can't detect >> subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see >> actions but it can't see intentions. And the more intelligent a animal's >> actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next >> generation. >> >> > we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its >>> delivery has been negatively impacted. >>> >> >> And the only way you or Evolution could have "happened to know" that is >> if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction >> from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies >> consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer, >> this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today >> everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every >> single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when >> they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the >> idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the >> intelligence/consciousness link is controversial. >> >> I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not >> the way we wish they were. >> >> > Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities >>> >> >> If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is) >> then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness >> too. >> >> >>> > Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the >>> efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery. >>> >> >> Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it >> if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution >> did somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably >> trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that >> consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence. >> >> >>> > John you need a strong answer to this. >>> >> >> If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is >> not valid then you are conscious. Now ask yourself if you are conscious or >> not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough? >> >> 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. >> > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
