On 07 May 2017, at 22:32, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2017 6:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic,
according to your theory of consciousness, is independent of
perception and physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are
entailed by arithmetic and so should be independent of tequila.
That does not follow. Even Robinso Arithmetic can prove that a
machine drinking some amount of tequila will prove anything.
That would be impressive. Is this proof published?
It is trivial. RA computes all states reaction in all
computational histories. RA is a universal dovetailer, to be
short. In the simulation of tequila + brain, people get drunk.
That's what I was afraid of. Your theory successfully predicts it
because it predicts "everything", including people drink tequila
and don't get drunk.
But that fact is confirmed by our best current empirically derived
theory: quantum mechanics.
QM also predicts ""everything", including people drink tequila
and don't get drunk".
QM doesn't predict "everything". For example it predicts that only
the eigenvalues of a measured variable will be observed -
QM does not predict that without an identity thesis which contradict
computationalism.
does your theory predict that?
We don't know yet. We have to verify this, no problem.
And it assigns an infinitesimal probability to drinking tequila and
not getting drunk.
Not really. Only by using the identity thesis in philosophy of mind,
but that is inconsistent with Mechanism. Sean Carroll forget the
"Boltzmann brain" which exists in arithmetic.
Does your theory do that? You said it was trivial to prove in RA.
What was trivial is the existence of the experience of being drunk,
but I made clear that the stability of that experience needs the full
extraction of the measure from the X1* and Z1* logics. That there are
quantum like logic is a good sign. Without it, mechanism would already
be refuted (modulo the dream/simulation point). But obviously, a *lot*
of work is needed, if only to motivate the physicists to dig more on
mathematical logic (the only science today which tackle the syntax-
semantics issue, which is close, with computationalism, to the brain/
consciousness issue).
Bruno
Brent
And I give the means to compare the measure, so let do the test,
and encourage people to pursue the study of the "material
hypostases".
We must "just "compare if people get less or more drunk in the
physical reality than in arithmetic, so to speak.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
