> On 23 Jun 2019, at 17:45, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > I changed the title of this thread, I don't even know what the old one means. > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog, > > continuous process. It would make a difference if all the decimals plays a > > role in consciousness. > > Even if you ignore the fact that it has been experimentally proven that > Bell's Inequality is violated and you claim there if a difference between one > Hydrogen atom and another, that is to say somewhere along that infinite > sequence of digits there is a difference, what you say makes no sense. The > atoms in my brain HAVE been replaced and yet I know for a FACT I have > survived; I don't know for a fact that the same is true for you but I think > it's reasonable to assume it is.
No problem with “reasonable”. My point is that mechanism, nor my consciousness in two seconds, or the consciousness of another people, is not something provable, in the crisp sense used in metaphysics/theology when we want to put all the card on the table. > So even if there is something analog going on inside an atom, if we're > talking about consciousness and survival it's irrelevant. That assumes digital mechanism. The whole point of the defender of non mechanism, is that the continuum is relevant. It is a way to keep our uniqueness, like Tomas illustrated recently the motivation. > > >Of course, Darwin theory of evolution would become inconsistent, but > >logically, we cannot exclude the possibility > > If a mathematical statement, even a well formed grammatically correct one, > contradicts a well established observation then it would be logical to > conclude the statement does not correspond with reality; after all every > language can write fiction as well as nonfiction. The fiction could be fun > to read and the very best might even have some sort of vague poetic > relationship to a truth, but there is not a literal correspondence to reality. > > >> Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on inside of > >> it when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say when one > >> analog process gets replaced by another analog process, I STILL survive. > > > That is the mechanist assumption. You can truncate the infinite decimal > > expansion in the analog process running a brain. > > It's not an assumption it's a OBSERVATION! You can justify the choice of an hypothesis with some observation, not prove it. I use the word “prove” or “justify” in a strong sense. > Atoms in my brain have been replaced many many times and yet my consciousness > has continued. My only ASSUMPTION is that you are like me and are also > conscious. Which is assumption enough. Same for Mechanism. It is a theological assumption: the believe in some form of technological reincarnation. > > >> So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the Hydrogen > >> atom's business not mine, it has nothing to do with me. > > > Assuming that you substitution level is above the truncation of the > > decimals used in the atom. But a non computationalist can assert that his > > consciousness requires all decimals. > > Then the non computationalist must logically conclude that he is not > conscious. Why? > I thought solipsists were bad but at least they thought they were conscious > even if nobody else was, but your non computationalist doesn't even think he > is conscious. How a non conscious person is able to think of anything I will > leave as an exercise for the reader. > > >>> In which theory? > > >> In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then I > >> have observed X. > > >You cannot observe a philosophical assumption. > > You can observe that a philosophical assumption is dead wrong, such as the > philosophical assumption that an infinite string of digits in an analog > process is always needed to continue consciousness. I agree that it is not much reasonable, but that is not the same as refutable. Keep in mind that by “non provable” I mean “need to be assumed” for proving …. Even the tautologies are not all provable. You need to assume some axioms and/or rules. > > >> Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I have > >> direct experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant > >> operations. > > > Yes, and that is good for you, but [...] > > But nothing! ..., if you suppress the quote. > It's good enough for me to say yes to the doctor and it's good enough for me > to say yes to being frozen. No problem. The point is just that a non computationalist can assert that his consciousness requires all decimals. You can believe that he is wrong, but that is not a proof, unless you make clear your mechanist assumption. > And if your experience has been similar to mine, if your consciousness has > also continued despite your many brain transplant operations, and if you are > a true fan of logic, then you must conclude it's good enough for you too. Yes, but typically, first person experience will not prove this to another. He might think I am another person, or a zombie, etc. We are not arguing truth or falsity of mechanism. Just its non rational justifiability, or provability. > > Personal experience is not available when doing science, > > True, and that is exactly why no consciousness theory ever devised is > scientific, and none every will be. That does not follow. We can make hypotheses/theories about consciousness, and be led to indirect testing. Example: the mechanist theory of consciousness leads to many-histories indirectly testable below our substitution level, and that is confirmed by Everett formulation of quantum physics. > But theories about how intelligence works are most certainly scientific. All domains can be handled with the scientific attitude. > > >> It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to the > >> doctor (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my > >> actions to you or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it > >> is the logical thing to do. > > > Personally, perhaps. Not sure about the guy above, though. > > I'm not sure about the other guy either, he might be a zombie for all I know, > everybody except me might be, all I know for certain is I'm not. That’s my point. It is in the same sense that Mechanism is not something provable. Mechanism entails the consistency of non-mechanism, a bit like the consistency of PA entails the consistency of (PA + “PA is inconsistent”). > The other guy is going to have to make his own decision, I can't help him, > nobody can. That’s was my point. OK. Bruno > > John K Clark > > > -- > 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/CAJPayv36KYSMKyLDQ5BQnn_oZ5JnOXiJsgOrL11m2K9gxUxDaQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv36KYSMKyLDQ5BQnn_oZ5JnOXiJsgOrL11m2K9gxUxDaQ%40mail.gmail.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/ADFA5106-6292-43C6-BBE7-21E305F2DAEB%40ulb.ac.be.
