On 11 May 2015, at 03:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 05:12:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2015, at 03:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:02:29AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
Really? Why are people so quick to accept that conscious recordings
are absurd? Sure I can understand that Bogie in the screen version
of
Casablanca is not conscious, but that is not the sort of recording
we're talking about. Here we're talking about something like an EEG
pattern where every neuron is recorded, as well as the entire
connectome. Why is it any more absurd for that to be be conscious
than
it is for the original lump of grey goo to be conscious?
That movie are conscious qua computatio is absurd, because the movie
contains only a description of a computation, with no logical or
arithmetic, nor physical (among the relevant one to have a
computation).
It has the physical, after the movie _is being_ replayed, and is
physically indistinguishable from the original computation.
Indeed, that is why the physicalist want to associate consciousness to
it. But it has only the physical similarity, without doing any
computation similar to the one done by the boolean graph.
To can see the movie as any computation you want, by varying the
boolean graph. A computation, roughly speaking is what a universal
machine do. You can invoke the physical universe emulating the movie,
but then the computtaion is the movie, that is a simple projection,
which does not compute any if-then-else, for example, unlike the
boolean graph of the dreamer, which compute if-the-else, indeed to be
counterfactually correct (and make the relevant computation).
I don't agree that it is only "a description of a computation". It is
a computation, albeit one of a restricted class. For example, one can
formally remove all conditional/branch instructions from the recording
replay. The question is why is it intuitively obvious that
conditional/branch structure are _required_ for consciousness?
It might not be required for certain type of consciousness. Maybe, I
am not sure. But even if consciousness does not require an if-the-
else, in the case at hand it does, as it is a sophisticated human
consciousness, which would act correctly if the input were changed.
That could the test to see if there is a *relative* computation
(relative to you, or some universal neighbor we agree on.
That is
what needs to be addressed. (See my earlier positing on another thread
for a possible answer to that).
That consciousness supervenes on the physical activity of the lump
of grey goo IS ALSO absurd, as it leads to the point that movie is
conscious.
For a materialist, saying that statement is absurd, and will lead to
being not listened to any further.
I do not understand. That *is* the point of the MGA: physical
supervenience ("in real time") entails "playing a recording" enact the
same consciousness as the Boolean graph", also in realm time. That is
absurd (with comp), so physical supervenience is false (with comp).
So consciousness is not related to the physical activity of the brain
at all, but only to the computations (which lived in arithmetic, in
many exemplars). It is the price of the truncation made by the
computationalist (at the substitution level). It is a principle of 3-
self -finiteness. What a brain does is just to make possible for a
conscious person, which is an abstract concept living in Platonia,
(having some precise relation with some infinity, (but already like in
the theory of the semantic of programming languages (no need of fairy
tales here)) to manifest itself relatively to you and your most
probable continuations, that she will inherit relatively to you
(leading to first person plural, normally at the G* level of []p & <>t
(p sigma_1).
The statement is hard only for the materialist who disbelieve
computationalism, well understood, that is with the mathematical
notion of computation made possible by the Church, Turing, Post,
Kleene ... discovery.
Best,
Bruno
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
