> On 23 Sep 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> On 23 Sep 2018, at 08:53, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> >>>> 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.
Could you be specific? Did you read my papers? > Showing that the logic of self reference has some similarities with > consciousness is not sufficient. Sufficient for what? I think you attribute me things I do not say. I start from a precise hypothesis, then all what I say is first derive informally, and then formally, using rather standard definition. > 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. ? I will only give you a proof that any machine claiming such a proof is inconsistent. I assume mechanism (the invariant of consciousness fr some transformation), and derive from that, constructively, the appearances, including the physical appearances, so that we can test. I don’t think you have studied my papers, or my long version. I don’t claim any truth. I give a proof, showing that the physical science are reduced to arithmetic, once we assume the mechanist thesis in metaphysics, and the proof is constructive, so I do provide the theorem prover programs for each modes (including the physical) at the propositional level. It is computer science. Universal machine have a theology, and those believing in enough induction axioms have a pretty good knowledge of that theology, even if they cannot really believe it (all that for logical reason). My PhD is in computer science and mathematical logic. Not only I prove everything I say, but I prove it entirely using no more than few identity rules and Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) Have you follow the combinators thread? I can use also only elementary arithmetic. It is more demanding as it takes the full first order predicate calculus/logic + the “non logical” axioms: 1) 0 ≠ s(x) 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y) 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 4) x+0 = x 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y) 6) x*0=0 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x (Of course, I make detour through the meta-level, where I use the induction axiom, like any mathematcian, but in the metaphysics, everything is eventually derived from those seven axioms, or those two combinatory formula. You do seem to have some prejudice, because in the matter of rigorous in this field, I am not sure any one has made so many people to verify all points. And yet, I have discovered some error later, and made the correction reverified. Now, in this field, there is a tradition of use of authoritative arguments, and of people cling not know the truth, and things like that. I do not, I extract a theory both by an intuitive reasoning and then by a full formalisation in arithmetic with induction, and then without induction for the ontology. > Mere similarity is not enough -- that is the cat=dog fallacy. I don’t use any “similarity”. I assume that there is a level of description of my body such that I would survive, in the clinical, and personal, usual sense. It is the digital version of Descartes rationalism. It is not my theory. I have a theorem instead. > Consciousness is a first person experience -- you cannot have first person > experience of a self-referential logic. Most logic are not self-referential. I guess you meant theory or machine, then you are just asserting that you believe that Mechanism is false. I do not do such kind of philosophy/religion. I put my hypothesis on the table (Church-Turing-Post-Kleene thesis + “yes doctor for some level n”). Then I deduce, first intuitively (so that you get quickly the picture, including that physics will be a sum on infinitely many computations supporting machine and seen from their self-referential modes) > You cannot prove that logic is consciousness any more than you can prove, by > logic alone, that other people are conscious. Excellent! (But I have never asserted anything like that, and this really show you have not yet begin to read any thing I wrote on this subject. I am a mathematical logician. I prove all assertions I say. That does not mean the confusion are true, but that they follows from the hypotheses. Then I compare the physical conclusion with nature, and I count the evidences, hoping to find a discrepancy so that I learn something. But none have been found, despite the quantum machine propositional logic is different from most quantum logic proposed in physics. It is also richer, by the quantum correspond of the Löb formula, which is the basic equation from which everything is derived, and translatable in arithmetic. I suggest you study the following, but I guess you need to study Mendelson's book in Logic before, or some by Boolos and Jeffrey. And study that only if interested, even if the motivation is to find an error, but if not interested, please say nothing. 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. 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 (sane04) Bruno PS I will be busy next week. Ah! Exercise: find the typo mistakes in my last combinator thread. Solutions as soon as possible. > > 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 [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.
