On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:45 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 23 Apr 2019, at 01:24, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Consciousness is a program. >> >> >> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that >> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a >> glass of bear and its price. >> >> >> >> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that >> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or >> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be >> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death. >> >> >> >> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its >> soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative) >> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing: > > Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter > but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it > possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from > our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that > this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely > that such universes may exist. > Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I > consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and > hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are > firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but > when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is > gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately. > > > > This shows also how much Turing was blinded by its belief in some primary > matter. If, he would have understood at once that our consciousness follows > the differentiating computations in arithmetic. > True, he did not appear to reach the conclusion regarding the primacy of computation, however, is what he says above all that dissimilar from what you have said regarding "souls falling" and becoming entangled with matter (the material/physical) world? It appears Turing was a "mechanist" if not a "primitive arithmetical mechanistic". > > Emil Post eventually got the immateriality”, but change its mind after > reading … Turing. > > I am interested in learning more about what Emil Post said on immateriality. Do you recall the reference? > With mechanism, it is simpler to not assume bodies and primitively > material bodies unless we get some evidences for them. Yet, until now, the > evidences gathered from the observation of nature confirms mechanism, and > refute physicalism. For anyone remembering dreams, seeing is not a valid > way to attribute any ontological existence, others than a subject, which we > already have in arithmetic. > This seems to be the normal pattern in human science. It was 40-50 years between QM and the serious consideration of relative state. Likewise the computational theory of mind began in the 1950s and 1960s, and it wasn't until your work that the consequences of this idea, when taken seriously, were fully appreciated. Perhaps there are times it takes a new generation growing up with the problems uncovered by the previous generation, to make significant leaps. Jason -- 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.
