On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4/25/2017 7:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 25/04/2017 7:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:44, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with > physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion. > > > A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I am > currently working on. I can describe this in mathematical notation if you > wish, but the process is not the notation. Any process that takes input and > produces output is a computation. All physical objects do this. And physical > objects do not know any mathematics. > > > > You assume that there are primary physical object. > > > Bruce's post refers to physical objects (one of which he perceives > immediately), but nothing he says depends on the physical objects being > "primary". > > > His last remark shows that he is interested in physics. But then why does he > participate in a discussion which is in > metaphysics/theology/cognitive-science? > > > I was interested to see if you had anything useful to offer. Also, it seems > to be a good idea to have a few contrary voices on this list -- otherwise > you would be speaking in an echo chamber where everybody thought alike. Or > else just preaching to the choir. That is never a healthy situation. > > Pirmary matter is an hypothesis that we do in metaphysics/theology, not in > physics. > > > So if computationalism is just metaphysics/theology, what has it got to do > with the real world? You say that 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact in reality. But that > is a fact only in arithmetical reality. It relates to the physical world > only if one defines a mapping between the symbols and experienced objects. > So you have to map the computations of the dovetailer to the world, and that > mapping is not part of the definition of the dovetailer. You seem to want to > construct the necessary mapping by reference to the perceived world, but > that makes the perceived world logically prior to your account of it -- you > can't account for it unless you already assume it. > > > I'm interested in theories of consciousness as they relate to intelligence.
I think this is of the utmost importance if AGI becomes viable. On the other hand, it doesn't mean of course that it is possible. > For example, I doubt that it is possible to make a philosophical zombie I have exactly the same intuition. I told you before: our disagreements seem superficial. > and > I thought Bruno's theory might put some light on that. I have an idea of > how human consciousness works and how it relates to intelligence, and I can > imagine other kinds of consciousness. But I have the impression that > Bruno's theory of consciousness is like his theory of physics - it predicts > also possible kinds and maybe a lot of other stuff too. > > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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.
