On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 8:33:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2018 12:32 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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?) > > > In human terms the subconscious is thinking that is not conscious but > controls action and becomes or produces conscious thoughts. It doesn't > include bodily housekeeping and transduction of signals. > > Brent >
I guess then in the case of the output object ο above, the part not implementing the experiential modalities of λ minus its the part implementing its "bodily house keeping" would be its subconscious. - 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.
