On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:14:22 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/30/2018 7:58 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:05:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:03, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> *What is a computer?* >> >> A computer is a device that executes programs. >> >> If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which we can do), >> then these bacteria are computers. >> >> >> OK. You might add “… that can execute all programs”. In any programming >> language. All universal number (mathematical computer, universal Turing >> machine, …) can imitate any other universal numbers. Either by Rogers >> compilation theorem, or by the usual interpretation theorems. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> I now have a next version of > > *Real computationalism* > > https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/ > > = my "pragmatic" definition of computing. > > 0.1. PTLOS configurations > > > A configuration PTLOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) — lower case Greek letters π, λ, τ, ο, > and capital Greek letter Σ are variables that take on concrete (particular) > values — is defined: > > > PLTOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) designates a program π that is written in a language λ > that is transformed via a compiler/assembler τ into an output object ο that > executes in a computing substrate Σ. > > > (Turing-completeness is included.) > > > But I want to meet therein the "consciousness challenge" of Philip Golff > and Gaylen Strawson in the PLTOS framework (the output object would be a > conscious agent): > > 6.5. A programming language including experiential modalities (experiential > modal logic, experiential modal operators or qualifiers) is needed to > extend the picture we have of matter [Goff] to include consciousness. > > (Modal logic historically covers modalities such as possibility/necessity, > belief, time, morality, knowability [ML1 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic>], but also self-reference [SR1 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049237X08701447>],[ > SR2 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2964058>],[SR3 > <https://books.google.com/books?id=oeDiBwAAQBAJ>].) > > > Are you trying to define consciousness into existence by assuming modal > operators for it? Or are you just trying to provide a language for talking > about it? Where is the subconscious in this theory? > > Brent > >
The proposal is in terms of the the PLTOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) framework: π would be a program in a λ with experiential modalities (modal operators). A compiler τ (presumably a biocompiler [ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biocompiler ]) would produce a conscious agent ο executing in some substate Σ. The *sub*conscious of ο would be whatever else is going on in ο's runtime not having to do with the conscious stuff, I guess. (What else would it be?) - pt > -- 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.
