2015-10-13 13:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>:
> On 13/10/2015 9:54 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2015-10-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>: > >> On 13/10/2015 7:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 13/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>>> The double-slit experiment is evidence of platonic computation being >>>> responsible for our consciousness, along with many other properties seen in >>>> physics. >>>> >>> Come again? How on earth do you make that out? The double slit >>> experiment is evidence for quantum superpositions of waves and/or >>> particles. Nothing to do with consciousness. As for the rest of >>> physics?????? >>> >>> The theory has survived numerous tests, without being disproven, which >>>> is all we can hope for as evidence for any theory. >>>> >>> >>> Quantum mechanics is a well-tested theory. Computationalism is not. >>> Computationalism can't even get the basic physics right, much less explain >>> how the universe came to exist long before consciousness emerged. >> >> >> Computationalism is the theory that a computer could simulate not only >> the brain's behaviour, but also consciousness. It is possible that the >> brain utilises non-computable physics, in which case computationalism would >> be false. Is that what you believe? >> >> >> You present a false dichotomy. The brain might well be Turing emulable, >> and computationalism false. That would be the case if matter is primary and >> arithmetic merely a formal game. >> >> > Then it's not computationalism... but materialism, as computation is not a > material notion... > > > I did say that computationalism could be false.... > > You have to say then that computation is just an abstract representation > of the real thing (aka matter doing thing looking at if it was a > computation)... then you is not "just" a computation... "you" is matter > which behaves like a computation. > > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > Matter as primary entity is thus needed... and the brain would not be > turing emulable per se. > > > That does not follow. > It does as turing emulability is a mathematical notion, it does not involve matter, so if matter is needed, then you have something more than turing emulability alone, you need matter. > > > Also I wonder how you could justify with such theory the equivalence > between two computations... if not by using abstract computation theory to > justify it... > > Two computations are equivalent if they give the same answers. > How do you justify it ? I can easily write an emulator of another machine and justify the correct functionning by logic alone, no matter involve... so if logic is just a game, and matter is the end point, algorithm *can't* be used as justification of the correct working. > > > Bruce > > -- > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
