On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett <[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]>[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? > > If you believe in axioms wherein you can derive a valid proof that "Watson was Sherlock Holmes sidekick" and that they exist. > > >> >> >> >> 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". > > To say something exists "only in fiction" means it exists only as a false account from someone's imagination with no ties to reality. Jason -- 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.
