On 05 Feb 2015, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2015 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2015, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person
observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there
is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about
consciousness.
So we all agree on this.
?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss?
I am not sure I understand the question.
Strictly speaking there are no third-person observable effects
because there are no third perons observations.
Indeed. Physics will be first person plural.
All observations are first-person. Other people are part of one's
model of reality (unless one is a solipist). So it's nonsense to
say we can't talk about consciousness because it's not third person
observable.
We can talk on many things that we cannot define, like truth, reality,
god, consciousness, pain, beauty, etc.
And then the arithmetical modalities illustrate how we, and the
machine, can indeed talk about what they cannot defined, and find the
consequences of what might be true, but non provable.
Consciousness and the first person effects have observable
consequences, although none can be used as a definite evidences of
the presence of consciousness and/or first person, which can always
be imitated for some finite time.
As I said, if you can see traces of nuclear technology in some
(alien) civilization, you can be pretty sure that there is
some amount of consciousness there.
Why? It certainly shows intelligence=competence. But according to
you that's the complement of consciousness.
Competence has just a negative feedback on intelligence, but you need
intelligence (and consciousness) to speed up the learning needed to
develop some competence, especially in the short time apparent in this
type of physical reality.
In fact it shows that they were enough intelligent to develop the
competence in nuclear physics to build a bomb, and that they are at
the level of dinosaurs in the matter of handling their economic
problems by building them (brute force, lies, terrors, ...).
When you reduce temperature to molecular kinetics, temperature does
not disappear.
When you reduce mind to cellular activity, you do eliminate the rôle
of mind, if only because it is the mind which select the "material
realities".
You can eliminate the mind, and even God, from the ontology, but with
computationalism, you need to eliminate matter in the same way.
That's the case with classical comp: only 0, 1, 2, 3, exists. The rest
are relative dreams emerging from infinities of true relations among
numbers, and physics is the study of a particular invariant aspect of
consciousness. Both the mind and the matter are different
phenomenological aspect which emerges from the fact that arithmetic
reflects its theories and machines infinitely.
Bruno
Brent
But you can't be sure.
Maybe on that alien planet, atomic bombs were built through the
process of their Darwinian evolution, like todays termites build
complex air conditioning in their termitaries without any planning
or (conscious) intelligence at play (apparently).
Bruno
--
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.
