On 12/30/2017 7:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Dec 2017, at 21:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/26/2017 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Dec 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/22/2017 2:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Brent Meeker
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/21/2017 3:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
So we are told. But what if someone could look at a recorded
MRI of you
brain and tell you what you were thinking?
Why do you need the MRI? You can look at the text that I write and
know what I'm thinking. We've been doing that all along.
The text I write comes from my fingers hitting the keyboard, and
the
fingers move in a certain pattern because the muscles are
activated by
nerves that are connected to my brain and completely correlated
to my
neural activity. What does the MRI add beyond precision? How
does this
help solve the mystery that I am conscious, instead of a zombie?
Well, you can't lie to the MRI. But otherwise I agree. Except
that I then
ask, "What mystery?" If having thoughts, however expressed or
detected, is
consciousness then problem solved...or more accurately pushed
back to why do
we believe a philosophical zombie is impossible.
Alright, I think we can agree on some important things. I would say
that we are both inclined to believe that:
"Certain configuration of matter are correlated with certain
states of
consciousness, and it must be so."
Yes?
The mystery here is: why must it be so? It is a perfectly legitimate
scientific question, I would say.
Any question is legitimate if you can think of a what an answer
might be or how to test it. But haven't you ever been engage with
someone who has a naive but enthusiastic view of science and so
asks lots of questions like "Why is the speed of light constant?"
or "Why are there only two electric charges?" or "Why did the
universe expand?" At the fundamental level science doesn't answer
"why" questions, because an answer would have to invoke a more
basic level (hence my virtuous circle model of explanation). Of
course you can never know that you're at the fundamental level.
The point I'm gently trying to make is that the "hard problem of
consciousness" is a why question, as you've posed it above, and
scientific progress is made by answering "how" questions.
It depends on the your theory of mind.
If you assume Digital Mechanism(DM) and Weak-Materialism (WM), that
is the existence of primitive, irreducible, matter: you get an
inconsistent theory.
That's false. If it were true you could derive a contradiction by
assuming DM and WM...but you can't.
No, but I make primary matter into either invisible horse. The point
is that we can test this, by comparing the quantum logic and
mathematics of the "machine's observable" and the "observed" quantum
logic. The measurable degree of "non-mechanism" can be seen as genuine
metaphysical evidence for "primary matter". Well, that has not yet
been detected.
You claim WM is otiose, which is not the same as contradictory, but I
find that dubious since materialism (i.e. physics) is necessary for
consciousness.
But that is the key idea of the whole story! More precisely, in
arithmetical term, consistency (<>t) is necessary for consciousness,
making physic phenomenologically given by the nuance []p & <>p or []p
& <>t.
It is the bet by default of taking it fro granted that there is a
reality nearby. (consistency, <>t, is equivalent with "having a
model", or "having a reality" or having a meaning" or "having a
semantic", etc. That is Gödel's completeness theorem).
You may object but it's not primitive/irreducible matter, but I'd say
those are just honorifics. You haven't shown it's derivative and if
it's necessary, then it's in the virtuous circle of explanation.
I show it is testable.
If you assume WM, it is up to you to propose a non DM theory of
mind, and explain the role of the primitive matter in it (and what
it could be).
It instantiates the DMs. My theory of mind is that it goes with
intelligence and if I build an intelligence it will be conscious.
Either it is Turing universal, and no universal machine can localized
themselves in arithmetic, but below their substitution level, there is
a unique sum on all machines/histories, and above, well a finite
number of universal machines, depending on the local geography and
history.
DM is testable. If Nature disobey to the Arithmetical quantum logic,
that would be the first confirmation on WM (and of ~DM).
That's a typical theologians argument: If I disprove your god then my
god exists.
If you did not take your kids back from school where they were
explained Euclides argument that each prime number is smaller that
some other one, then you believe already with my god.
But all I say is that such a god is testable, by comparing the logic
of the material hypostases with the logic of the observable. It fits,
we get the quale logic extending the quantum.
You seem to be the one invoking a god no one has ever seen (primary
matter), just to ignore the necessity to test the computationalist
hypothesis, and its arithmetical account of the observable appearances.
The hard problem is solvable, and I would say solved. Indeed
incompleteness explains most of what people agree on consciousness
(true for universal machine/number, not definable, not rationally
justifiable; not doubtable, etc.).
It seems to me that people who want an answer to the "the hard
problem" are asking why can't we explain consciousness the way we
explain gravity and metabolism and atoms.
But DM explains exactly that. It explains why consciousness and
first person notion obeys different logic that the observable. And
the explanation does not add anything to elementary arithmetic (PA).
I'm saying we can - it's just that all those explanations are how
explanations and so let's get some "how" explanations of
consciousness - the engineering approach.
That is intrumentalism. It is like let us try to NOT do science, and
eventually it leads to materialism reductionism, minimizing when not
obliterating the first person notion, and violating in that way the
main data of the problem, and into making the quite speculative
physicalism into a pseudo-religion.
You're the one doing theology and making a religion of modal logic.
This would be like condemning GR for being a religion of Tensor.
The real thing used here is the arithmetical, or digital,
self-reference. That they diverse modes are captured by a modal logic
and its variants imposed by incompleteness is just as lucky that
tensor calculus can be handy when interested in gravitation.
So the "modal logic" are structured set of theorems concerning what a
machine can be sure of, share with others, hope or fear when thinking
about itself, and experiencing itself.
But these "machines" are extreme idealizations and the degree to which
they model human consciousness is very doubtful.
"My religion" is just studying the consequence of indexical
computationalism, to distinguish to some 3p version like strong AI. It
is: "I" say yes to the doctor.
I realize many people confuse evidence for some physical law, with
evidence for the metaphysical assumption that there is a physical
universe. But I think I am the first to propose a genuine empirical
set of experiments capable of testing that idea, and up to now,
thanks to the quantum, the test available today confirms DM, and
disconfirms if not refute (with Aspect experience + assuming
determinacy and locality) Mechanism.
The problem is that your empirical tests are all retrodictions and
there is nothing interesting or surprising in testing them.
You forget that by the intensional variants of the corona G* minus G,
we get the qualia extending the quanta.
What qualia do you get "extending" the number 2 or the blue of the sky?
What is it uninteresting in testing them? We get the full
propositional logic, it would be a miracle it fit with the von
Neuman-Birkhoff quantum logic. Here the universal machine already
mirrors that they are different quantum logics in play.
It's not interesting because there are obvious evolutionary and
functional reasons that at brain would not be aware of itself.
Anyway, what I say follow from computationalism, when we stop to
invoke personal conviction to stop the inquiry and the testing.
I have suggested several times that your theory might be able to says
something about the epistemic vs ontic interpretations of QM or about
the question of why QM isn't based on quateronic or octonic fields.
Yes, that is interesting. But the universal machine interview is not
yet up to that stage.
Let us come back to reason, especially in metaphysics/theology where
the human remains so emotional about this.
If you really believe in a non reducible physical universe, you
*have to* explain what is that primitive matter
That's a mugs game. If it's "primitive" that means you don't explain
it...unless you believe in my virtuous circle of explanation.
It is preferable to use simple explanation, and with mechanism, we
need to avoid to invoke the axiom of infinity, in the ontology, even
if it is free as a phenomenological tool.
The choice is between a magical matter + a magical mind, or elementary
arithmetic. And all I say is that we can test this.
and you have to explain its role in consciousness selection, because
only invoking matter per se to avoid the arithmetical measure
problem, and its arithmetical and empirically testable solution,
If it's empirically testable, then let's test it. But only failures
of empirical tests are decisive.
Sure.
There are many ways to predict the Sun will rise tomorrow...that
doesn't make them all good theories.
Basically, what I say is that there is only the numbers + addition and
times, which gives all computations. But you add that there is a
mysterious being, "primitive matter" making some computations more
real than others. My point is that this is testable.
If you find an empirical quantum tautology violated by Z1*, or X1*, or
S4Grz1,
There's no such thing as an empirical tautology...that's why I said it's
a mugs game.
you get an embryo of evidence for primary matter (and possible
zombies, etc.) or (because that remains logically possible) you are in
a malevolent simulation (made in the "normal physical" reality) by
some entity investing in lying to you).
The evidence is that not possible events happen. Hence computationalism
is falsified.
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.
