On 28 May 2015 at 22:03, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> LizR wrote: > >> On 26 May 2015 at 16:59, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> LizR wrote: >> >> On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark <[email protected] >> >> Of that I have no opinion because nobody knows what "comp" >> means, >> least of all Bruno. >> Comp is the theory that consciousness is the product of >> Turing-emulable processes, i.e. that it's a computation. >> >> Actually, that strictly does not follow. All that follows is that a >> computer can emulate certain physical processes upon which >> consciousness supervenes. This does not mean that consciousness is a >> computation, in Platonia or anywhere else. >> I may have been too hasty. Comp ("comp1") is the theory that it's the >> /outcome/ of a computation, at some level. >> All that we know from the evidence is that consciousness supervenes >> on physical brains. >> >> We don't actually know this, although the evidence appears to suggest it. >> > > On that basis we don't ever know anything! Are you sure :-) > That might well be the case, but science does not operate on such > impossible certainties. We have a working hypothesis that consciousness > supervenes on the physical brain. So far all the evidence supports this > hypothesis, and there is no evidence to the contrary. That is good enough > for the scientist in me. > OK, but scientists are I believe generally agreed that we don't know anything, we only have models, theories etc. Of course mathematicians may beg to differ. -- 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.
