On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > two identical computers, put in two different rooms can generate the same > consciousness > I agree. > > > or put in another way, to the First Person Indeterminacy (FPI): the fact > that no machine can know *introspectively* which computations support it > among the infinitely many emulated > The word "which" implies that only one was responsible, but you just said two or more can. > > In the formal treatment, this is recovered by the fact that G* proves the > extensional equivalence of all intensional variants of provability, and G* > proves the non intensional equivalence of thoise variants, > That's nice, but proofs can't make calculations much less produce intelligence or consciousness, in every instance to do that it takes matter that obeys the laws of physics. No exceptions have ever been observed. None. > > There are infinitely many changes in the matter which would not affect > change in the first person experience. > And there are infinitely many brain changes that will change your personal experience, and any random change to the brain, a bullet to the head for example, will almost certainly make a change in the first person experience , and probably not for the better. > >> >> it seems like a very good bet indeed that matter is required for your >> personal experience. But any matter will do because it's generic. > > > > > Including the matter which only appears to be material, > How would "matter which only appears to be material" differ from matter that really is material? Physics is empirical and is all about appearances, if theory doesn't match experiment then the theory has to go regardless of how beautiful it is, and there is not a single confirming instance of a calculation being made without the use of matter. None. > > > but is really a projection of the first person, which makes my point that, > by being "generic", we get that matter does not need to be assumed > That conclusion is illogical. The correct conclusion is no particular atoms need to be assumed for first person experience because none of them have our names scratched on them. > >> >> The irrelevant thing is that matter >> >> is primitive >> . >> >> > > > > Excellent. That is part of the point. > THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT PRIMITIVE MATTER! > > > > But step 8 shows > [...] > The failure of step 3 means step 8 shows nothing. > > The point is that once matter is no more primitive, it has to be explained > from some other science > If you are only interested in intelligence then the existence of matter does not need to be explained. If you can explain it then that's nice, if you can't then too bad, but either way matter is necessary for intelligence or consciousness >> >> Primitive or not molecules are needed for water >> >> to exist > > > > > But not for being wet. > One can't but many can, that's why I said molecules and not molecule. And a computer scientist no more needs to explain the existence of matter to make a AI than a hydraulic engineer needs to explain the existence of water. to build a dam. > > > it becomes a Matter-of-the Gap, like in bad theology > What other sort of theology is there except for bad? > >> >> >> Harry Potter as depicted in in Rowling's books can perform real magic >> every bit as well as a Turing Machine depicted in a textbook on computer >> theory can perform real calculations. > > > > > Yet, nobody complains when seeing a statement like x + 1 = 17 is soluble, > when used in applied sciences. But try to publish a paper in a science > journal invoking Harry Potter's magic ... > That would be like publishing a scientific paper in a Harry Potter book. English is a language and it can be used to write both scientific papers and Harry Potter books. Most mathematicians insist that mathematics is a language too, so I don't see why it can't be used to write fantasy that corresponds to no physical reality just as English can. > > So, I think that you are not correct here.The fact that 17 is prime can > have physical or biological consequences, > Granted, but much of modern higher mathematics is far far more abstract baroque and convoluted than that! It could be that papers on inaccessible cardinal numbers or the 196,883 dimensional Monster Group have more in common with Rowling's Harry Potter than Darwin's Origin Of Species. > > > but the fact that Potter can fly has none. > Well... the Potter books are the product of Rowling's physical brain and they have influenced many millions of other physical brains. > > Turing's tape is not physical. > Then it can't do anything. > > > See how Matiyazevitch proves that any Turing machine can be emulated by > Diophantine equation, > > without any reference to anything physical. > Then stop just talking about it and start the Diophantine Computer Hardware Corporation. There would be no way you could avoid becoming a trillionaire, not with zero manufacturing costs. >> >> the fact that one beer plus one one beer is 2 beers will effect my >> decision to have a third beer, but one rock plus one rock equals 2 rocks >> will not. So apparently numbers can't tell the entire physical story alone, >> something more is needed, something like matter that obeys the laws of >> physics. > > > > > You make my point: the Gödel number of your brain cannot bring your state > of mind without the relevant universal numbers, and those must emerges from > all the numbers getting at your state. So physics must be reduced to a > mathematical measure on the sigma_1 sentences, > As I've said nineteen dozen times its irrelevant if physics can be reduced to sigma_1 sentences, or to something else, or to nothing at all; if you want intelligence you're going to have to use matter that obeys the laws of physics. And even if it turns out that oxygen and hydrogen can be reduced to sub sub sub microscopic strings if you want to understand water you're still going to have to understand chemistry. >> >> there is zero evidence that anything can emulate anything unless matter >> that obeys the laws of physics is involved. > > > > > You don't need evidence. > If it worked they'd be lots of evidence, but it doesn't so there's not. > > > It is an elementary mathematical theorem, that arithmetic or combinatory > algebra emulate everything emulable. > The trouble is theorems can't calculate anything much less emulate anything. A theorem can't do anything at all unless there is a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of physics to think about it. John K Clark -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
