From: *Bruno Marchal* <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 23 Sep 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
<mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
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.
Could you be specific? Did you read my papers?
Quoting from above: "...the logic of self-reference basically predict
consciousness...."
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.
Sufficient to explain consciousness. I quote what you 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.
Proof is a formal concept. A proof conveys truth only in so far as the
axioms/assumptions that were assumed at the start are true. Your proof
assumes arithmetical realism (platonism). I do not accept that
arithmetical realism is true. Therefore your proof is irrelevant.
I don’t think you have studied my papers, or my long version.
If I do not accept the starting point, then studying the long version of
your argument is not going to convince me.
I don’t claim any truth.
Good. The conclusions of formal proofs are true only in so far as the
premises are true. You can't prove the truth of arithmetical realism.
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.
So if we do not assume that mechanism is true then your proofs are
valueless.
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.
