> On 29 Mar 2018, at 17:55, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 11:28:56 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, [email protected] >> <http://gmail.com/> wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, [email protected] <> wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote: >>> Brent Meeker Wrote" >>> >>> > It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and >>> > conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a >>> > corresponding change in the other. My intuition is that there is a lot >>> > of my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior. No doubt >>> > it's observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external >>> > level. >> >> The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking about. >> A change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and a change >> in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind is what the >> brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon is conscious >> but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious. >> >> I don't doubt that. But does equal intelligence imply equivalent >> consciousness. >> >> >> IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have two >> Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different >> intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you >> ascertain whether either is conscious? AFAICT, there is no understanding of >> what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception of >> sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might be >> programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of its >> body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a human >> response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking about? TIA, >> AG >> >> You could program both Rovers to do arithmetic, but only one to do calculus. >> So you could say one is more intelligent than the other. Or you could >> program both to see in visible wave lengths, but only only to see in IR. So >> you could say one has superior vision than the other. But what you can never >> do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any circumstance, has self >> knowledge or self perception, or can experience rudimentary or complex >> sensations. So I don't think we're any closer to an explanation or >> understanding of consciousness than when we started, however long ago that >> was. AG >> >> If we had a clue how self-reference could result from a neural network such >> as the human brain, we could, perhaps, duplicate it in a Rover or whatever, >> But I see no evidence that we have such an insight to do the modeling. >> CMIIAW. AG > > > > It can be proved that if the neuronal network is Turing complete (an that > happens quickly), it has the precise self-reference ability which gives him > the same theology (including physics) that the one of PA, ZF, or of any > machine believing in any arithmetical or combinatoric induction axioms. > > Self-reference is where computer science excels the most. It is indeed born > from a reflexion on paradoxes due to the self-reference ability of many > mathematical structures. > > You added: > > "And if we had such a clue, we could determine if carbon is necessary for > self-reference, or if silicon would do just fine. But I seriously doubt we > know enough now to make such a determination, or to even begin the analysis. > CMIIAW. AG “ > > > > We do have the clues, and we can answer that carbon, silicon cannot make any > difference, unless you disbelieve in Mechanism. It is up to you, to suggest > what a continuous non mechanist matter could be, and how it links > consciousness (first person, knowledge) and the observation (something that > the materialist have failed to explain since about 1500 years). > > > Bruno > > I cannot connect to anything you claim. AG
Good. It is normal. It took me 35 years to get all this, and it is build on fundamental theorem in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. You might read the previous conversation on this list, or study my summary paper here: B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> Other more recent papers which sum up this well, including the open problems, are Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. Your problem is that you seem to take Aristotle theology for granted (the existence of primary matter or physicalism). The God-Not-God debate hides, since 1500 years, the fact that the original question of the ancient Greeks, Chinese and Hindous was about the existence of a physical universe or is it just a dream or an illusion of some sort. Plato was a skeptical about the idea that what we see is the real thing. It could emerge from “mathematics seen from inside” for example, and since then we have discovered that elementary arithmetic can prove the existence of universal machine and of all their doing, then the physical appearances are explained by self-reference, and we have got the core of quantum mechanics from only this (although importantly without any wave collapse to be sure). Bruno > > >> >> >> In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that behaved very similarly >> (as similar as two different humans) and yet, because of the way I >> implemented their memory or computers their consciousness was very >> different? Of course this is related to the question of how do I know that >> other people have consciousness like mine; except in that case one relies in >> part on knowing that other people are constructed similarly. >> >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
