> On 31 Mar 2018, at 10:57, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:01:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Mar 2018, at 01:35, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >You don't need an instrument that can give a clean yes/no answer to the >>> presence of consciousness to develop scientific theories about >>> consciousness. We can start with the observation that all normal healthy >>> humans are conscious, and that rocks and other inert objects are not >>> conscious and work from there to develop a science of consciousness, based >>> on evidence from the observation of behaviour. >>> >>> But if it was all based on the observation of behavior then what you'd end >>> up with is a scientific theory about intelligence not consciousness. >> >> That is right. But if you agree that consciousness is a form of > non-provable but also non-doubtable knowledge, > > Only with self-awareness. A non self-aware consciousness (if such a > thing exists) would have no knowledge whatsoever of its consciousness.
Consciousness is always self-awareness or self-knowledge, in the first person sense. And it has to be more in the p than in the []p, when defined by []p & p. > >> and if you agree with > the standard definition of knowledge in philosophy of mind, > > But isn't the Theatetus formula more a property of knowledge, rather > than being equivalent to knowledge itself? It is an attempt to define knowledge, and it works in arithmetic (thanks to incompleteness). > Couldn't Bp & P describe > things other than knowledge? How do you define knowledge? Bp & p obeys the S4 axioms for knowability, which is where most philosophers agree for a definition. To be sure, we can dismiss the "4” axiom ([]p->[][]p), which gives the Löbian type of consciousness. > > then it is a theorem that Peano Arithmetic is conscious. To believe that > Robinson Arithmetic is conscious too (plausibly even more) is more tricky. >> > > The premisses are already quite stretch :) The premise is the mechanist hypothesis. Bruno > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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.
