> On 10 May 2019, at 08:54, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 2:50:49 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > On 5/9/2019 11:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> On 5/9/2019 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 3 May 2019, at 15:27, Terren Suydam <[email protected] <javascript:>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> One way to get around this is to hold that consciousness is associated >>>> with the way information is processed. >>> >>> >>> That is mechanism, but then you inherit infinitely many body-representation >>> in arithmetic, and the mind-body problem becomes in part a justification of >>> the appearances from a statistic to all computations going through our >>> brain. Then incompleteness explains what this take the shape of a quantum >>> reality. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> This is substrate independent - the fact that a brain is physical is >>>> beside the point. You could implement a brain in software, and insofar as >>>> the same kinds of information processing occur, it would be conscious in >>>> the same kind of way. >> >> Only if it exists in the same kind of world. >> >> >> Church-Turing implies that the world is irrelevant, so long as it is >> possible to build a computer in some universe, it is possible to >> instantiate/access any conscious state from that universe. > > But the same inference implies that all universes are the same. > > That doesn't follow. It's more like saying one universe is FORTRAN and > another is LISP. > > Jason > > > Our universe is more like LISP than Fortran, I think. Actually more like > process-oriented programming* (e.g. Actor model). > > * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process-oriented_programming > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process-oriented_programming> I agree, but with mechanism, even this has to be justified. We just cannot postulate a physical universe, even in the shape of one particular program/computation in arithmetic (unless our substitution level = an entire physical universe).
Bruno > > @pphilipthrift > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/148cf924-14b9-403c-8109-3097b15f5f1c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/148cf924-14b9-403c-8109-3097b15f5f1c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A3D481A7-FC7D-4865-8438-927710A76F6C%40ulb.ac.be.
