On 15/06/2016 3:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/14/2016 9:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That seems to be assuming a lot! Assuming that consciousness is a
(type of) computation does not imply that non-arithmetical substrates
exist, much less that pencil and paper exist. Knowing that something
is true of the world that we experience does not entail that its
existence is necessary.
Bruno can start from his (neo-)platonist assumption that arithmetic
exists independently, and that arithmetic implements all computations
(Turing machines). But he then has to prove that this assumption
leads necessarily to the existence of a physical world of the
character that we observe.
I think that parts pretty easy. Having assumed arithmetic exists it
follows from Godel that all Turing computations exist (in
arithmetic). Among all computations are those instantiating our
conscious thoughts. Those conscious thoughts include those we call
perceptions which we interpret as experience of a physical world.
In which case Bruno's 7 or 8 step argument is irrelevant -- the early
steps do nothing but put forward a confused notion of personal identity.
If you assume all computations exist in arithmetical platonia, the
dovetailer follows automatically. But one is actually no better off than
if one started by assuming the physical world and explaining both
arithmetic and consciousness as products of evolution.
As I said this seems to have the same problem as Boltzmann's brain. It
would imply that any universe at all similar to ours has measure
zero. But eternal inflation may have the same problem of "proving to
much".
That seems to be the real problem with the computational approach -- how
do we get the world we actually observe (and the consciousness we
actually experience) rather than just a mish-mash of everything, with no
distinct laws or thoughts. If one is going to appeal to something like
an inference to the best explanation, then physicalism wins hands down:
computationalism doesn't even get to first base, whereas physicalism can
provide a realistic mechanism (evolution) that can readily give all the
results one desires. Application of Occam's razor leads to the same
conclusion.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
