On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 14/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
Cochlear implants and artificial retinas give evidence
toward multiple realizability, and therefore, against
mind-brain identity theory. They show that it is functional
equivalence, rather than material/compositional equivalence
that matters. Since computers can realize any finite
function, then assuming there are no necessary infinities
within the brain, computers can realize any functional state
the brain is able to realize. For physicalism to be correct,
you have to believe either that functional states are
irrelevant to consciousness, or that physics can instantiate
functional states which Turing machines cannot.
That is simply false.
Well that explains it.
Again it's not clear what you mean by
computationalism. Bruce can speak for himself, but I
think he agrees that strong AI is possible.
Strong AI implies consciousness is substrate independent.
But I thought Bruce argued against consciousness being
derivable from mathematical computations, which would mean
consciousness is substrate dependent: that it depends on
physically implemented Turing machines.
I certainly argued that consciousness could not be sustained
on platonic computations in arithmetic. But that was because
I do not accept that such things exist.
What evidence have you seen that led you to this conclusion?
What evidence do you need to say that something does not exist?
Absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.
Why is that so in this case, when the standard form of that phrase is
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
Also, despite your claims to there being no evidence, there is in fact
evidence of platonic computations. They exist independently of you,
mean, and this physical universe, as surely as "7 is prime" is true
independently of you, me and the physical universe.
In mathematics you have descriptions of Turing machines and
descriptions of computations, but no live machines or
computations.
There are both.
What evidence do you have for this assertion?
The existence of a UD implies a quantum reality, and we observe a
quantum reality.
Accepting the truth of arithmetical systems like the axioms of
Peano/Robinson arithmetic, implies their existence.
Does accepting the truth of "Watson was Sherlock Holmes sidekick."
implies that they both existed?
Substrate independence simply means that you can replace all
or part of the human brain with computer-based equivalents.
In other words, strong AI. No need for platonia in order to
say that consciousness is independent of the substrate.
But if it is independent of substrate, and if computations exist
platonically, then those platonic computations are equally
capable of instantiating consciousness.
You are confusing the meaning of 'substrate'. In the context, I
meant an explicitly physical substrate. Platonia is an idea,
If Platonia is an idea, then so is "The primary physical reality". It
is up to science now, to determine which of these two ideas is more
likely to be true.
it is no more 'physically real' than is the idea of a unicorn, or
of Hogwarts School.
Of course it isn't physically real. But why assume physical existence
is the only kind of existence? That seems to be an idea based purely
faith.
We commonly assume other kinds of existence; they're called "fictional".
Brent
--
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.
