> On 2 Jul 2018, at 00:04, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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]> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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.
In the ideal case of the machines I interview. Obvioulsy, despite incompleteness justify their need of a non monotonical logic and belief revision system, or some paraconsistency, we don’t need this in the mind-body problem, where we need only to interview sound machine. > > "No one has yet succeeded in inventing a philosophy at once credible and > self-consistent. That is right, but nobody can infer that this is impossible. It is difficult, even more so since we have separated philosophy from science. > Locke aimed at credibility, and achieved it at the expense of consistency. Newton too. It is the fate of all theories. > 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. Yes. > The most fruitful philosophies have contained glaring inconsistencies, Yes. Even Popper criteria of refutability has been refuted! > but for that very reason have been partially true.” Yes, it is the best we can hope for. > --- Bertrand Russell Bruno > > 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] > <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.
