On 2/26/2018 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2018, at 20:37, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2/23/2018 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2018, at 23:17, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2/22/2018 1:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Feb 2018, at 00:48, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2/18/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If consciousness is invariant for a digital transplant, it is
not much a matter of choice.
But that's simply assuming what is to be argued.
?
It is the working hypothesis. The argument is in showing that this
enforces Plato and refutes Aristotle. Physics becomes a branch of
machine’s psychology or theology.
The argument must be that the doctor has done this before (maybe
to humans, maybe to mice) and there was not detectable change in
behavior, so it's reasonable to bet on the doctor.
The reason why you say “yes” to the doctor is private. It needs an
act of faith because no experience at all can confirm
Computationalism.
That's moving the goal post. You can't convince me that if you
knew the doctor's work had no observable affect on the behavior of
mice if would not, for you, count as evidence in favor of
consciousness being retained. Nothing is ever "confirmed" with
certainty.
My point was stronger. Even if I say yes and truly survive “100%”,
that cannot count as a proof that I have survived integrally, The
reason is the possibility of anosognosia.
And the point is a theorem in the computationalist metaphysics. We
know that we would believe correctly to have survived (and thus know
it in the Theaetetical sense), but with an intellectual doubt
enforcing to not claim to have *necessarily*survive, keeping the
theological act of faith mandatory. Of course, we can bet that the
humans will forget this ...
Maybe stronger, but still a very weak point. Everyone on this list
thinks that intelligent behavior is an indicator of consciousness;
Yes, but not necessarily an indicator of “supervenient of
consciousness in some real time”. If I see a movie, I can see
intelligent behaviour, and attribute some consciousness to some
person, but not in a real time. With mechanism, the person is always
conscious, but its body/representation is not.
no doubt because they believe that their own consciousness is
important in their intelligent behavior. Sure it's possible that
they are unrelated and it's just a coincidence or the consciousness
is an otiose epiphenomenon. But that doesn't mean it's not
evidence...and pretty convincing evidence at that. You have become
so immersed in logic and mathematics that you seem to have forgotten
that science doesn't find *necessary* truths and that acting on
evidence is not an act of faith but of reason.
When you based your act on reason, you still need some faith in your
reason and in its applicability to your local reality.
A sophistic argument worthy of a theologian. If you didn't have "faith"
in your reason you'd have no basis for any belief or action. It's just
a rhetorical trick to insert "faith".
This does not need to be mentioned in most practical application of
science, but it becomes important when doing metaphysics or theology
with the scientific method.
Due to some possible anosognosia, even doing the digital
transplant experience oneself would prove nothing, even to
yourself (despite the feeling). You can know that you have
survived, but you cannot know for sure that you have survived
integrally (but you can know that in the Theoretical sense,
slightly weakened).
A doctor who claim that we survive such transplant, or that
science has proven we can survive such transplant is automatically
a con-man.
Not at all. He may be going on the best available evidence. Just
because it's not proven in your axiomatic system doesn't mean it
has no credence.
Of course. Computationalism just insist that in all case, it asks
for the act of faith.
If it's based on all the evidence it ain't faith. "Faith is
believing what you know ain't so."...Mark Twain.
No, that is blind faith. I use faith for acting from evidence, given
that evidence proofs nothing.
Depends on what you mean by "proof", we sentence people to prison based
on proof of their crime. Not all proof is mathematical. And
mathematical proof is only relative to the axioms.
It is close to the <>t of G, the implicit faith in our own
consistency, which makes us inconsistent when made explicit, like with
an axiom, postulate or proof.
Obviously, we have to do that every seconds, if we assume mechanism.
The credence can be very high/ My point is more academical, if you
want, no matter how I feel after the transplantation, it is never a
“proof” that mechanism is correct, or that I have survived. Like I
cannot prove that I am conscious.
You cannot prove any fact. You can only prove that some axioms
entail some theorems given some rules of inference. But you can have
evidence, you can test theories. To say it is never proof is trivial.
It is the kind of trivialness that most people forget when doing
metaphysics, especially when confusing physics and metaphysics, like
the Aristotelian did explicitly at the beginning, but tend to become
an habit of thought ever since. Many people have a problem to
understand the difficulty of the mind-body problem, because they just
confuse the physical science with the metaphysical sciences. They
confuse evidence for the a physical reality and physical laws, with
evidence for a primary physical evidence. My contribution is in
showing that we can test/evaluate the dichotomy between Mechanism and
Materialism. And up to now, Mechanism win. As far as we know, the
physical reality behaves like it is emerging in the way that digital
mechanism makes mandatory.
Winning is making a surprising but correct prediction...not making a
small retrodiction. Materialism makes many more correct predictions
about consciousness, even down to the specificity of localized
electrostimulation of a brain causing reproducible conscious thoughts.
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.
