> On 8 Nov 2018, at 15:35, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
>
> > for consciousness, which needs a relation between a brain, and truth.
>
> Hallucinations exist.
Hallucinations have still a relation with truth (consciousness, for example).
>
> > That needed truth needs also to be independent of the brain.
>
> Hallucinations are not independent of the brain.
The truth of the consciousness is not. It depends only on the existence and
realisation of the relevant computation (which is realised in arithmetic).
Eventually the brain is part of the hallucination.
>
> > Information processing can “differentiate” consciousness, it cannot create
> > it per se.
>
> No idea what that means.
It means that a brain will process different first person experience when it
splits on different possible inputs, like in the WM-duplication.
It is like with the Helsinki —> {Washington, Moscow}, except that the Helsinki
person is now a universal virgin machine, and W, M … are all relative
computational states accessible by that virgin (un programmed) digital
machine/number.
>
> >>As for experience, anything with a memory has that, even the 1946 ENIAC
> >>computer had memory.
>
> >Not in the first person sense.
>
> How the hell do you know what anybody or anything's first person experience
> is other than your own?
I know nothing. I assume mechanism and the theory of consciousness based on the
mathematics of self-reference.
>
> > Of course I have evidence that “we” are conscious. I have no proof, but
> > plenty of evidences.
>
> You have plenty of evidence that we are intelligent but there is exactly zero
> evidence "we" are conscious.
We have evidence for intelligence (and for stupidity also), but we have
evidence for consciousness too. Our own indubitable experience, and our
resemblance, including the resemblance of behaviour, especially the emotional
one. But maybe you believe that we are zombie?
>
> > your mail here is an evidence (not a proof oc course) that YOU are
> > conscious.
>
> My mail is evidence of my intelligence (or some might say lack of it) but it
> says precisely nothing about my consciousness, unless of course you use the
> axiom that intelligence implies consciousness.
Emotional intelligence/stupidity in human is indeed evidence, for humans, that
other people have consciousness.
(But intelligence, in your sense of competence, does not require consciousness
per se).
> And every human being this side of a looney bin makes use of that axion every
> minute of every day of their waking lives since they were about 2; the only
> exception is when some argue on the internet that computers are only "pseudo
> intelligent" because even though they can outsmart us they are not conscious.
> Evidently they think wet and squishy can be conscious but dry and hard can't.
Or they think that some self-referential loop are needed. Intelligence as
comptence is not well defined. Some degree of intelligence will require
consciousness, but some (perhaps low) level of competence does not necessarily.
I don’t think Deep Blue show consciousness, for example, but it does show some
level of competence in the domain of Chess.
>
> > Alan Turing used his material brain, yes, but that has nothing to do with
> > the fact that he gave a definition of computation [...]
>
> Definitions be damned!
Not in this case. The key point is that the notion of computation does not
require any assumption in physics or in metaphysics.
> Alan Turing did not become famous because he made a definition, anybody can
> do that. Alan Turing became famous by showing how the laws of physics can
> produce arithmetic,
Yes for that too. But he became famous above all for its mathematical discovery
of the universal machine.
> and not even all the laws are required, just the laws of classical mechanics
> are sufficient.
Classical mechanics is Turing universal. But he showed that a part of math is
Turing universal.
> And meanwhile nobody has shown how arithmetic could produce the laws of
> physics or even just mechanics.
Any Turing machine can emulate any Turing complete subset of physics. That is
trivial to derive from the theory of computation. What Turing missed is that,
once we assume Mechanism (which Turing defended) this made physics into a
statistics on first person experience, or “machine theology" which is a branch
of “pure” mathematimatics. You have to wait for me for this ...
>
> > you confuse [...]
>
> Enough with the "you confuse" crap. I'm not the one befuddled by personal
> pronouns.
Then re-explained what the Helsinki person can expect before pushing the button
in Helsinki, but this time adding “1p" and “3p” in front of all the pronouns.
>
> > mathematical models and realities are quite different from the language
> > used to describe them.
>
> That is equivalent to saying "The English word "cat" is quite different from
> the English word "cat" “.
?
No it is the difference between the English word cat and a cat.
Bruno
--
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.
