> On 14 May 2019, at 00:11, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:36:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > On 5/13/2019 6:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Physicalism fails to account for consciousness. This is the worst possible >> failure I can imagine, given that consciousness is the only thing I can be >> certain to exist. > > I think this misunderstands what science does. In the words of John von > Neumann, "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to > interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical > construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, > describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical > construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." I see two > approaches to this, one (of which I have been the main advocated on this > list) might be called "the engineering approach" while the other is the > philosophical approach. The philosophical approach either takes > consciousness as fundamental and incorrigible (like Cosmin) or tries to > equate it with something within a theory based on something else (like > Bruno). One thing both approaches seem to rely on is that there can be no > p-zombies, i.e. intelligent behavior is a sure sign of consciousness, as JKC > is won't to point out. Given that the engineering approach gave us Turing, > LISP, Deep Blue, Watson, and AlphaGo...while the philosophical approach > "predicts" various things we've know for a century or more and various > contradictory things about the future (as Bohr said, "Prediction is hard, > especially about the future.") my money is on the engineering approach. > > Brent > > > > I think this is right, without getting into defining the whole > physicalism/materialism thing. > > The article > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ > <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/> > > by Daniel Stoljar <http://philosophy.cass.anu.edu.au/people/daniel-stoljar> > (who wrote a textbook on the subject) is as good as any, I guess. > > I'lll just say one should soon become bored to death taking about the > definition of physicalism/materialism. > > Now it is clear scientists come up with models (and theories, and frameworks, > and paradigms), and they take their "model" and likely "implement" it in some > programming language and use that program to match to experimental or > observational data, and they maybe use a statistical program to say"that > looks like a good match". > > But the elephant in the room is semantics: What is the interpretation of the > "entities" of the model.
The reality in which we can interpret the proposition. “2+2=4” is true if it is the case that 2 + 2 = 4. > > Semantics is a big deal in programming language theory. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_(computer_science) > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_(computer_science)> Yes, and that is inherited by mathematical logic, which study mainly the relation w-between theories and their model (model means semantical structure, in logic). > > Is there a calculus of experience, and a semantics of experiences (qualia)? Yes, with Mechanism, it is given by precise mathematical theories (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*). The proper non communicable parts are given by Z1* \ Z1, X1* \ X1. Note that S4Grz1* = S4Grz1 (the soul agree with God about the soul). > > That's the scientific question. Yes. Bruno > > There is a hidden code of nature—the code written into its fabric. Our > theories—our hypothetical code—are our evolving best-guess translations of > the code of nature, which remains hidden from our knowledge—within > nature-in-itself. > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2cca5659-de7f-4131-944b-78d81b23ed72%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2cca5659-de7f-4131-944b-78d81b23ed72%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/CA3AEC5B-FA4F-4068-AF35-4ABABABBCEF8%40ulb.ac.be.
