On 29 Nov 2014, at 11:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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.
OK.
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?
Yes, it is a quasi-logical consequence of computationalism. The
"quasi" comes from the fact that once we apply the theory to
"reality", we still needs some amount of Occam.
But the summation is just there to quantify on your infinite sets of
your arithmetical realization in arithmetic. It results from the FPI
(the first person indeterminacy) of any machines with respect to the
infinitely many realizations.
Relativizing the state of the observers in the Q wave is not enough,
or has to be justified on theoretical computer science grounds. We can
only relativize on the arithmetical (sigma_1, Turing-complete truth).
The mystery is not the summations, but more the subtractions, that QM
wave allows. The self-reference logics used for deriving matter gives
a clue where the subtraction comes from, by imposing a quantum logic
on the bottom (the sigma_1 proof and statements, the foliation of the
universal dovetailing, the global FPI domain).
For a computationalist, QM apparent indeterminacy, the apparent non-
locality, and the many-world aspect of nature confirms its many-dreams
internal interpretation of arithmetic, by itself, and its foundations
of physics and theology.
But it is still possible that comp entails too much realities, and get
disproved. I am not saying that this or that is true or false. Just
saying that with computationalism, something like QM was to be
expected, directly, by the FPI, or the inability for a machine to pick
out one computation/universal-machine among an infinity.
Bruno
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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
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.
