On 7/1/2018 5:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jun 2018, at 20:18, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/29/2018 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:43, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/27/2018 1:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 27 June 2018 at 03:24, Brent Meeker<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to explaining
anything (e.g. we're living in the Matrix). The theories of M are
certainly
incomplete, but if there is empirical data inconsistent with those
theories
it just shows they have limited domain. If there is empirical data that
is
impossible to include in M how would we know; how could we be sure that
it
could not be included?
I don't see how that fact that I am conscious and have a first person
experience of reality could be explained by M.
I suggest you should think about what you accept as good explanations of
other phenomenon.
I gave several examples before, regarding emergentist explanations.
Suppose that Darwinian theory has not been discovered, and we have the
following conversation:
T: Where does life come from?
B: Ah, well, it emerges from chemistry.
T: Fine, how does that work?
B: I told you, it emerges from chemistry. What kind of explanation
were you expecting?
I don't think Darwin had anything to do with discovering the chemical basis
of life, which I suppose is what you meant put in the future of the
exchange.
Well, he discovered the principle of selection with variability, and
how this leads to biological complexification. That is no small part
of the puzzle. I meant Darwinism in the neo-Darwinism sense, including
Mendel's postulation of genes, Crick and Watson's discovery of DNA
structure and many other things.
Notice the difference. We have all of these mechanisms to back the
"life emerges from chemistry" theory. Each one explains a piece of the
puzzle. For consciousness we have nada.
But we don't have nada. We have some understanding of how neurons
work and we've even made some AI based on neural nets that is
surprisingly intelligent in a narrow domain. We know a lot about
how a brain produces consciousness from the way that injury or
external stimulus affects consciousness.
OK. But that leads to Mechanism. Then computer science explains
“consciousness” by showing that when a machine introspect itself, it
discover consciousness, i.e. immediate non-doubtable subjective
belief in some truth, yet a non provable (transcendent) one, not
even definable (like truth itself).And we get a mathematically very
precise theory of qualia. But the quanta have to be part of those
qualia, and this make the theory testable. It explain the why and
how of consciousness, but also the matter appearances, and this with
all details, so that we can test the mechanist theory of consciousness.
I know you're thinking, "But that doesn't explain why the brain
processes produce consciousness". My point is that you don't ask
/*why*/ planets produce gravity.
?
I though that this what Einstein asked for, and solved: mass produce
gravity by curving space-time.
Once you have an equation that precisely predicts /*"what"*/ you
stop asking /*"why”*/.
Hmm… Not if you are interested in metaphysics/theology. I stop only
on 2+2=4.
When we can predict, manipulate, and create intelligent human-like
behavior
That will never happen, or it already happened with the discovery of
the universal machine. The question is when that machine will be as
stupid as human. But I guess this is vocabulary. I guess you mean
“competent machine”. The universal machine might be the most
intelligent entities ever, but also very fragile: it can become dumb
to the point of believing in its own intelligence, which is the mark
of stupidity.
That's misusing the words. It can't be stupid to believe in your own
intelligence if you are intelligent.
You can’t assume it, or assert it, without asserting you own
consistency implicitly, which is enough to make you either
inconsistent, or unsound.
Just like a logician to imagine that one must be consistent to be
intelligent.
"No one has yet succeeded in inventing a philosophy at once credible and
self-consistent. Locke aimed at credibility, and achieved it at the
expense of consistency. Most of the great philosophers have done the
opposite. A philosophy which is not self-consistent cannot be wholly
true, but a philosophy which is self-consistent can very well be wholly
false. The most fruitful philosophies have contained glaring
inconsistencies, but for that very reason have been partially true."
--- Bertrand Russell
Brent
If you're intelligent but don't believe it
… there will be no problem.
then you will act on the instructions of someone who is less intelligent.
..which would be stupid.
That is right. But in that theory, to believe one is stupid is as much
stupid than to believe you are intelligent. In all case, you can come
to that conclusion only because someone told you so. You did just
confuse []~ with ~[].
Bruno
--
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.
