On 01 Jul 2015, at 06:05, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:08:39PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2015 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. No problem with this. But my interest are in consciousness and
qualia, and the advantage of computer science is that it can
handles the computer's truth that the computer cannot communicate,
observe feel, see, etc.
The computer cannot prove some theorems. And it's commonly said
people can't communicate qualia, e.g. perceptions, feelings,
emotions (although we manage at some level). But that doesn't make
(unprovable theorems)= qualia.
No, but it is feasible that qualia are a subset of unprovable
statements. Presumably, computationalism entails that qualia must be
expressible in the language of the machine, and such statements are
either provable (and hence comunicable) or not.
Cheers
But there are an infinite number of unprovable propositions. Are we
to suppose that all of them are qualia?
No - I don't think that was ever suggested.
What qualia is, "Peano
arithmetic is consistent"? If many unprovable propositions are not
qualia then we need some additional discriminant and the "hard
problem" is not solved.
I don't think Bruno ever claimed that the hard problem is solved.
Hmm... I like to say that it is 99,9% solved, and 100% meta-solved, as
we get a complete explanation why we can't solve it 100%
What
he is suggesting is that studying the set of unprovable propositions
will tell you something about qualia. This is a much more modest
claim.
G*\ G is more the "pure" machine theology.
Qualia are in X1* (and non justifiable one) are in X1* \ X1.
The intensional variance is utterly important. It is the place where
professional logicians eventually say "OK, I got it", as it is easy to
believe that I use only G* \ G, when not reading the papers.
i insist, the incompleteness (and thus the non emptiness of G* \ G)
entails two important type of distinctions:
the horizontal one (the star-distinction), but also the vertical one:
the nuance between
p
[]p
[]p & p
[]p & <>t
[]p & <>t & p
It is very rich, and the machine discovers this when looking inward.
Then to get physics, you still need to restrict the arithmetical
interpretation of p to the sigma_1 sentences (the computable realm).
Bruno
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
