On 24 Jun 2015, at 05:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 24 June 2015 at 02:00, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> consciousness may not need physical instantiation, which is where
unfettered computationalism leads.
People like Bruno are the only ones who believe in "unfettered
computationalism", everybody else knows there is not one single
example of a computation being made without a physical
instantiation, not even 1+1; and nobody has even the ghost of a hint
of a hunch of an idea of how to do such a thing.
The problem is to deal with the consequences of computationalism
that Scott Aaronson has raised in the blog, and have been raised
many times on this list: can a lookup table be conscious? What about
a lookup table that is not actually consulted? What about Boltzmann
Brains? What about Maudlin's Klara or Bruno's MGA? What about a rock?
Look-up table are not defined precisely, but all what matter are the
computable relations between the natural numbers (or the combinators).
Consciousness, or just the first person experiences statistics, does
not depend on any implementations, but on all which leads to
consistent (and hopefully sound) continuations. We are in the
Boltzmann Brains and in the non Boltzmann Brain, as we belong to the
dreams of all universal numbers.
Self-referential correctness put constraints leading to different
person views and person types of view.
We have just to be precise on what is. With comp, 0, s(0), ... are
enough, with the seven axioms of RA. But K and S is very nice too.
There is a universal degree four diophantine polynomial. This means
that all sigma_1 test, when true, can be verified in a boundable
number of addition and multiplication. Some have succeeded to limit
that numbers to 100. This means that even in Platonia they is some use
of look-up table. The information can be coded in big numbers, and
retrieved (when there) in few giant elementary operation.
Does a rock think? Well, I have asked a rock and it did not answer, so
I think that the rock is already wiser than the human.
Don't get a rock into a contradiction, because that will blow up the
mountain or the building.
Do we have the right to cook rocks and metals, if they feel something?
Rock's reaction are mechanical or electro-chemical action/reaction,
and rock does not seem to have developed self-representation. As far
as we know. Some quasi cristal could be Turing universal, like some of
Penrose pavage.
Rocks exist in the head of universal number, but it might be that the
particles are truly lawful, or not. That is open with comp, and
without comp.
Now, why the complex numbers? Why symmetries and groups. Why does it
seem there is no Kestrel (which eliminate irreversibly information)
and no Starlings (which duplicate information) at the bottom of the
physical reality? We can ask the machine and already get some light,
if patient enough.
Bruno
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
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.
