From: *Bruno Marchal* <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 23 Sep 2018, at 08:53, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
<mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
From: *Bruno Marchal* <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
I would say that mechanism explains rather well consciousness,
through computer science and the logic of self-reference ((which
basically predict consciousness (indubitable, non provable and non
definable sort of knowledge),
With that sort of logic
Only standard classical logic is used in the derivation. + some
hypothesis.
I can prove that my cat is a dog:
My cat has four legs and a tail; dogs have four legs and a tail; so
my cat is a dog.
That is invalid in all logic. I was not arguing, just remind the work
already done. The proof is longer, OBVIOUSLY. It shows that you have
not read the papers.
No, you use exactly this logic all the time. You find some superficial
similarity between things and then conclude that they are identical.
Showing that the logic of self reference has some similarities with
consciousness is not sufficient. You have to show me a logic that has a
coherent internal narrative and shows the signs of consciousness that I
use to conclude that other people (and cats and dogs) are conscious.
Mere similarity is not enough -- that is the cat=dog fallacy.
Consciousness is a first person experience -- you cannot have first
person experience of a self-referential logic. You cannot prove that
logic is consciousness any more than you can prove, by logic alone, that
other people are conscious.
Bruce
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
