On 30 Dec 2017, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
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.
Is that a New Year joke?
You could have told Newton that a mathematical point is an extreme
idealization and the degree to which they model planets and suns is
very doubtful. The point is that the level of descripotion is relevant
for the reasoning. To get the physics, we interview sound machine, not
those who claims they are Napoleon.
"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?
Come on. The qualia are in SAGrz1 and in X1*, with semi-qualia in Z1*,
in precise technical sense, using both the intuition of mechanism and
its translation in arithmetic.
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.
The test I mention is about materialism versus computationalism.
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.
A tautology is bthe name logicians gave to any propositional calculus.
A quantum tautology is just a theorem in quantum logic, most are
classical tautologies as well, but the inverse is false: many
classical tautologies are not quantum tautologies. Tautology means
theorem.
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.
Which not possible events? You lost me Brent. To be franc, you seem a
bit disingenuous in your response, to me and to David too. You were
often much less dogmatic, and you did show more understanding. You do
have the option to build a non computationalist theory of mind if you
want to save Primary Matter. It has to be testable too, etc. It is a
more complex task, and without evidence it is even more difficult, but
if the machine's physics depart really from the observation, as we can
test now (and there is no departure), so it seems premature to get to
move on a so string ontological commitment. The only metaphysical use
of matter I ever found was in naive theology where it is needed to
interpret the "christus corpus" nature.
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.
