> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:02 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: >>>> This is computationalism - the idea that our human consciousness _is_ >>>> a computation (and nothing but a computation). >>> >>> What distinguishes a conscious computation within the class of all >>> computations? After all, not all computations are conscious. >> >> Universality seems enough. But just universality gives rise only to a highly >> non standard, dissociative, form of consciousness. It might correspond to >> the cosmic consciousness alluded by people living highly altered state of >> consciousness. >> >> You need Löbianity to get *self-consciousness*, or reflexive consciousness. >> A machine is Löbian when its universality is knowable by it. Equivalently, >> when the machine is universal and can prove its own "Löb's formula". []([]p >> -> p) -> []p. Note that the second incompleteness theorem is the particular >> case with p = f (f = "0≠1"). > > But people are aware and self-aware and have been for millenia before Löb.
Absolutely. Like bacteria are Turing Universal well before Turing, and its DNA is made of A, T, C and G well before Watson. Like the Big Bang was a Big Bang well before Lemaître, and the far away galaxies were there well before Hubble … I guess we agree on this. > They are not even universal They are, even at different levels. A bacteria is Turing universal. Indeed I discovered that notion more or less explicitly when studying bacteria and molecular biology (but of course I did not get Church’s thesis). > and all but a handful never even heard of the concept. So why should the > mere idealized possibility (assuming unlimited time and memory) be the > requirement. It seems obvious to me that humans are aware and conscious for > based on much more limited capacities. Universality is cheap. It does not ask for many capacities. Humans are more than universal/conscious, they are Löbian/self-conscious, but this does not mean they need to have heard about Löb, no more than a bacteria needs to have studied Watson and Crick. You loss me. Even Peano arithmetic can be said to be Löbian, even if Löb missed that discovery. > In my favorite intelligent Mars Rover example I see no need to make the > rover's computers Löbian and they are not going to have unlimited time and > memory, Nobody, and no universal machine needs an infinite time and memory. A universal Turing machine is just a special finite set of quadruples. The tape is only pedagogical folklore. If you want I explain more. Humans also have no infinite memories. > so they won't be universal. An interpreter LISP is Turing universal independently of the size of the memory used. A universal Turing machine is a finite set of quadruplets which will compute phi_x(y) when given the two finite number x and y, and here phi_i is a enumeration of all Turing machine/quadruplet. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
