On 07 May 2017, at 22:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2017 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <[email protected]>
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.
Yes, but the key is the measure, isn't it. Everett also predicts
that everything consistent with QM happens. Somehow this leads to
a probabilistic account of what to expect. We know the math but
we don't know the reason. You're no doubt bored with my banging
on about Hoyle, but I must say that his is so
far the only metaphor that has ever conveyed to me how something
could be both certain and uncertain depending on one's point of
view. So I think it's far too tricksy to say that comp predicts
everything (or Everett, or eternal inflation for that matter).
The key is the measure and how that measure discriminates between
the typical, the unusual, and the downright weird. Open problem,
sure, but hardly an empty or pointless one.
But that's what I mean when I say Bruno's theory has no predictive
success.
No. Physicalism is refuted (in the Mechanist frame). It makes
physics not even able to predict that I will see a needle when
looking at my physical device.
And mechanism has strong predictive power, as shown by the meta-
reasoning, and its formalization in arithmetic. It asks for a lot
of work, but the contrary would have been astonishing, especially
when we see the irrational response to all this, which last since
more than 1500 years in Occident.
QM (and Everett) would correctly predict that alcohol molecules in
the blood will interfere with neuronal function and THEN invoking
the physicalist theory of mind, i.e. that mind supervenes on
material events,
That could work, but not in a computationalist theory of mind.
That is a computationalist theory of mind - i.e. thought supervenes
on the computations of the brain.
I guess you mean the physical brain. But how? How could the physical
brain select the computations in the UD*?
And, then, we wait for that theory.
No need to wait. It is already as complete a theory as saying mind
supervenes on the computational states of a UD.
With the UD we acknowledge that the theory need to solve the measure
problem. With the physicalist theory, people just say "matter does the
selection" without explaning how.
No problem if you postulate a consciousness based wave packet
reduction à-la Penrose (or just the Bohrean falsity of QM when applied
to observer), although there are no evidence at all for it, and it
solves nothing in philosophy of mind: it just helps to keep intact a
religious belief in some primary "Matter", which is the unscientific
way to do theology).
Bruno
Brent
the one given by Penrose might be an embryo, but he got Gödel
wrong, and a reasoning by Abner Shimony trows doubt on the role
consciousness could have in the wave packet reduction.
it predicts that your ability to do arithmetic will be impaired by
drinking tequila. It will NOT predict the contrary with more than
infinitesimal probability. So it's misdirection to say that it's
just a measure problem. Without having the right measure a
probabilistic theory is just fantasy...or magic as Bruno would say.
Not at all. The point is that if we believe in CT+YD we get that
measure problem. And its formalization in Arithmetic gives the
complete propositional solutions, which is promising for that
measure existence and isolation.
No magic here, unlike invoking the Primary Matter to select
computation in arithmetic, which is akin to "God made it".
It's magic when you say it's a trivial problem already solved in RA
to show that drinking tequila inhibits thinking about mathematics.
Also, I insist, it is not "my theory". It is arguably one of the
oldest theory of humanity.
Plato didn't think of digital computers, Church-Turing computation,
a UD, or quantum indeterminancy.
Brent
It is the favorite theory of the strong atheists and of the
materialist, but they are shown to be inconsistent, because the
whole point is that Weak-Mechanism is inconsistent with Weak-
Materialism.
I am not coming with anything new. I just show that two widespread
beliefs are inconsistent with each other, then I use Gödel and the
quantum to show that the evidences add up for mechanism, against
materialism.
Bruno
Brent
David
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.
--
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 everything-
[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.
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.
