On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 6:40 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I do know this: > > *The Church-Turing thesis is one of the most useless ideas ever invented.* > > > Is it? It's the reason you can install new apps on your smartphone without having to buy a new chip or piece of hardware everytime you do. It's why we can have virtual machines (I am writing this e-mail from a virtual machine) and emulators. It's why we have the profession of software engineers who need not care about the hardware in question.
> > Is the church-Turing thesis true? > Almost certainly. Jason > Carol E. Cleland > https://philpapers.org/rec/CLEITC > > The Church-Turing thesis makes a bold claim about the theoretical limits > to computation. It is based upon independent analyses of the general notion > of an effective procedure proposed by Alan Turing and Alonzo Church in the > 1930''s. As originally construed, the thesis applied only to the number > theoretic functions; it amounted to the claim that there were no number > theoretic functions which couldn't be computed by a Turing machine but > could be computed by means of some other kind of effective procedure. Since > that time, however, other interpretations of the thesis have appeared in > the literature. In this paper I identify three domains of application which > have been claimed for the thesis: (1) the number theoretic functions; (2) > all functions; (3) mental and/or physical phenomena. Subsequently, I > provide an analysis of our intuitive concept of a procedure which, unlike > Turing''s, is based upon ordinary, everyday procedures such as recipes, > directions and methods; I call them mundane procedures. I argue that > mundane procedures can be said to be effective in the same sense in which > Turing machine procedures can be said to be effective. I also argue that > mundane procedures differ from Turing machine procedures in a fundamental > way, viz., the former, but not the latter, generate causal processes. I > apply my analysis to all three of the above mentioned interpretations of > the Church-Turing thesis, arguing that the thesis is (i) clearly false > under interpretation (3), (ii) false in at least some possible worlds > (perhaps even in the actual world) under interpretation (2), and (iii) very > much open to question under interpretation (1) > > cf http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dgoldin/papers/strong-cct.pdf > > etc. > > @philipthrift > > On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> How do we know other humans are conscious (we don't, we can only suspect >> it). >> >> Why do we suspect other humans are conscious (due to their outwardly >> visible behaviors). >> >> Due to the Church-Turing thesis, we know an appropriately programmed >> computer can replicate any finitely describable behavior. Therefore a >> person with an appropriately programmed computer, placed in someone's >> skill, and wired into the nervous system of a human could perfectly mimic >> the behaviors, speech patterns, thoughts, skills, of any person you have >> ever met. >> >> Do you dispute any of the above? If you encountered a close friend who >> had to get a computer replacement for his brain (e.g. due to an inoperable >> tumor), and this friend displayed perfect mimicry of the behavior prior to >> the surgery, would you continue to tell him he his not conscious, despite >> his protestations that he is every bit as conscious as before? On what >> basis would this your claim rest? >> >> Jason >> >> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Re: "only certain kinds of matter can be conscious" and "all matter is >>> conscious" >>> >>> I do think the first (human brains at least, and perhaps some non-human >>> brains, from primates to down* the "food-chain"). >>> >>> Some think there was no fully or cognitively conscious (only a sensory >>> conscious) human before language. There may be something to that. >>> >>> But not the second (where there is self and self-awareness). *Rocks >>> are not conscious.* But the idea is that all matter does have some >>> level of *elementary protoconsciousness* in various types, phases, and >>> configurations of matter. When some matter is combined into certain >>> configurations (like a human brain), these *protopsychical parts* are >>> fused into something conscious. >>> >>> * Do Insects Have Consciousness and Ego? >>> *The brains of insects are similar to a structure in human brains, which >>> could show a rudimentary form of consciousness* >>> >>> >>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/do-insects-have-consciousness-ego-180958824/ >>> >>> >>> I don't think that societies are conscious, the Earth is conscious, the >>> universe is conscious. >>> >>> The Earth is aware of itself? I don't think so. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 8:25:26 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>> >>>> You keep trotting out the term "cybernetic delusion" as if it's a >>>> problem. But it's just an assumption I make, that consciousness is >>>> identified with cybernetic dynamics. I'm exploring the consequences of that >>>> idea, which are compelling IMO. >>>> >>>> You or anyone else can feel free to adopt or not adopt that assumption. >>>> But it's not a delusion. Calling it that suggests there's a more correct >>>> way to view consciousness. But you haven't been clear about what that is, >>>> vacillating between "only certain kinds of matter can be conscious" and >>>> "all matter is conscious". If you adopt panpsychism, you fall prey to the >>>> cybernetic delusion yourself. And when you don't, *you fail to explain >>>> what privileges certain kinds of matter over others*. It seems pretty >>>> clear to me that there's no principled way to do that... any explanation of >>>> why brains can be conscious but not computers starts to sound suspiciously >>>> like "spirit" and "soul", in the sense that you're invoking some property >>>> of matter that cannot be detected. >>>> >>>> Terren >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:57 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 8:30:00 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 9:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *> What happens in cases of telepathy is [...]. For example, in cases >>>>>>> of dream telepathy [...] This clearly is a case of dream telepathy.* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, there was little doubt before but you just made it official, Cosmin >>>>>> Visan is a crackpot. >>>>>> >>>>>> John K Clark >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Telepathy I doubt pretty bigly, but the cybernetic delusion is a >>>>> really crackpot idea. >>>>> >>>>> @philipthrift >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> -- > 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. > -- 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.
