On 08 May 2015, at 06:28, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 15:25, PGC <[email protected]> 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.
I have just been trying to list the objections people have made to
the MGA (in another thread) and the conclusions people think they
should draw from the MGA (in this thread) in the hope of reducing
the fog of war a bit.
But since Bruno pointed out that diplomats can cause wars, I haven't
felt so happy about this sort of enterprise anyway, so maybe it's
just as well everyone ignores me.
It can be helpful. I expected something new with Bruce (on MGA), but
it is the usual hand waving, by someone who ignores that arithmetic
run the computations (which explains his incredulity).
In 1987, when I present the argument, in the room some come up with
similar idea, and I answered. But some told me after that when people
come up with idea like a recording is conscious, or 2+2 might not be
equal to 4, it means that I have win the argument for the audience,
and should stop arguing, because what is proposed is absurd enough.
MGA was already built to address cutting the air people, but for such
people, there is no limit. It is like my student in math who suggest
that may be what I prove to them is that 0=1, and reject classical
logic.
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.
