On 29 May 2015 at 06:13, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28 May 2015, at 14:53, LizR wrote: > > 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. > > Are you buying Deustch's wrong idea that mathematicians are not scientists? >
Not really, but I think most people consider them something different. It is my opinion that mathematicians *are* scientists, in that they make discoveries. Hence their discoveries should be subject to refutation as more evidence becomes available. (But some mathematicians would I think dispute that, claiming that their field is exempt from the usual scientific process). > > Even theologians, when they practice with the scientific attitude, agree > that we don't know anything, and have only experiences, theories and > interpretations of theories. We bet on a reality when we have faith, but > that bet is always personal, and not part of science. But it can be part of > the art of medicine, ... > > Then we agree, because that's more or less what I was saying to Bruce, in reply to his claim that "All that we know from the evidence is that consciousness supervenes on physical brains" -- 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.
