On 08 May 2015, at 05:25, PGC wrote:
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 4:56:54 AM UTC+2, Liz R wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 14:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
Which was rather my conclusion. Since the MGA is not a rigorous
argument, it was always of very limited utility -- it certainly is
insufficient to carry the weight of the conclusion that the physical
substrate is unnecessary for consciousness.
I suggested several conclusions. Do you think any of them
potentially carry any weight?
I don't see a single valid argument against the incompatibility
between comp assumption and physical supervenience reached by MGA.
Without more rigorous distinction between informal notion of
recording and formal notion of Universal Number actualizing
computation, or implications of Church's thesis bearing on this,
such discourse will be the obvious result.
But such a valid argument against incompatibility, therefore
weakness or failure of the argument, is easy to miss with all the
ideological hand waving purported to show some flaw, problem, or
weakness when these mostly boil down to insisting that comp
hypothesis is not true or that MGA is weak when slipping glitchy,
informal and unspecified notions of recording and robust, implying
their formality without backing it up, into the discussion.
Not having time to even read all of it, I also think that Bruno
spoon feeding everybody here and being lectured by Bruce on his
teaching methodology is cheap; especially considering that Bruno
offers his time and effort into answering for free, and out of good
faith in informal scientific exchange. In short, I don't have time
to read and therefore understand all of it, but with all the lowbrow
moves, it seems redundant and beside the point. The truth or falsity
of comp is not the issue here. If you can prove such formally, then
go publish or show the goods here at least. PGC Zombie Ninja over
and out.
Yes, it is weird, and made by people who show have no idea of what a
computation is.
Eveb if there were something valid in Bruce argument, it is would not
been completed without a theory explaining what is that primary
matter, and how it select the computation, in a way which is what?
both Turing emulable (if not comp is false) and non Turing emulable
(if not, the selection is done also in arithmetic).
As you say, it is just hand waving by people having no idea of what
computation are. Bruce sum up lacks the main part of the argument, and
speculate on a magical God saving the physical supervenience, and this
just to not address the comp mind-body problem, presupposing aristotle
theology. It is a dogmatic defense of a dogma.
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.
