> On 8 May 2018, at 19:35, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/8/2018 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> ... >>> It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep >>> questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears >>> classical. If quantum and classical realities are separate and equal >>> aspects of the world, such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with >>> objective loss of quantum information. >> >> Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural numbers do >> not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read my papers for >> proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability theory, notably to >> understand that computation is an arithmetical notion. I can give references. >> The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital. >> Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing >> emulable (consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain transplant). >> It makes physics independent of the choice of the “ontology” as long as it >> is Turing universal, and that it has no induction axioms, nor infinity >> axioms. Note also that the physical universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, >> nor is consciousness (amazingly enough: I am aware this is >> counter-intuitive). > > That turns your whole argument into a redcutio, sense
I guess you mean “ That turns your whole argument into a reduction ad absurdum, since" > at the beginning it assumes one can say "yes" to the doctor and have one's > consciousness preserved by replacement of one's brain by a classical computer. That reductio ad absurdum is not valid. As you say, mechanism presupposes that “my consciousness” is preserved through the emulation of my brain, but that does not entailed that consciousness “itself” can be emulated by a computer. I agree that is a subtle point. So let me try explain this “incorrectly”, but more simply, and then I correct the argument. Imagine that consciousness is like a radio signal, emitted by the Big Bang (say). Now our friend X is computationalist, and decide to get a brain transplant. He heard about the “radio signal” theory of consciousness, so he asks to his/her doctor, to ensure that the substitution level will be low enough so that he/she can still read the correct signal with the right frequencies, etc. That alone invalidates logically your reduction ad absurdum. But of course, consciousness is not a radio signal, nor a signal at all. But consciousness is also not the same as computation, nor the emulation of the computation, nor anything third person definable. Consciousness is a higher order semantical notion, only lived as true, undoubtable, uncommunicable, by a person in touch with *some* truth, and to emulate that, you might need to emulate god and matter and so you might need to emulate the whole (arithmetical) truth, or all computations at once, which is not computable/emulable (but could be quantum computable, note). Consciousness is part of the semantic of a sort of abstract hero, that you are, and that is the part that needs the act of faith when you say yes to the doctor. The first person definition attributes it to your body and to its infinitely many counterparts in arithmetic, and all what a transplant brain does is a keeping up of ways to manifest your consciousness with respect to your Gaussian normal local histories. That something is preserved don’t make it equivalent with its relative implementations. Consciousness is part of a *true* (non computable) relationships between many numbers that no numbers can ever know nor justify rationally. But they can bet at their risk and peril. Eventually, it is all in the difference between []p and []p & p. The doctor manages only the Gödel number of “[]p”, the finite representation, … for “p" you need a god (a self-encompassing truth notion). That can be use to catalog your reduction as a confusion between []p and []p & p. If you don’t mind. With 8 hypostases, you have (8 * 7)/2 dualities, leading to 28 confusions possibles. 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] > <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.
