> On 19 Sep 2019, at 17:00, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 12:14:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 9/18/2019 3:02 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > I think he means one can replace a human brain and/or nervous system > > with computer microchips and consciousness will be preserved, or > > perfectly simulated so the person who says "Yes doctor", will awake > > from the surgery thinking he/she's the same person, like awakening > > from unremarkable surgery. From my pov, this belief is a huge, huge > > stretch since we can even define what consciousness IS. > > Define in terms of what? We define it ostensively. How would it help > to define it in words? > > Brent > > I think you've nailed the problem. We don't know how to define > "consciousness”.
Not we don”t have a definition of consciousness, but for those who claim to not know, I suggest to ask their dentist to not use anesthetiser, and they will have a pretty good idea of what is it to be like having consciousness. Consciousness is what gives sense to pain, pleasure, knowledge, etc. > In terms of what? With mechanism, we can define knowledge by the conjunction-onjction of belief and truth. For belief, we can use Gödel’s definition in elementary arithmetic (where you assume x + 0 = x, & Co.), fortieth you can study Tarski theory of truth, it quite enough, and yes, tarski is the one showing that the arithmetical truth cannot be defined by machines, or actually, even by most non-mechanical entities too, with some exception. > Presumably it's properties, as we define other entities in physics, such as > the electron. You cannot use 3p notions to define consciousness which is a pure 1p notion. (Eventually the physical will appear as a 1p-plural notion, but that’s for later). > Who was the SC justice who said you know pornography when you see it, but you > can't define it prior to the observation? So far, the most we can say about > consciousness, that is, its properties, is that it's self-referential. AG Indeed, but it has two main level: the simple non reflexive consciousness, which is implicitly self-referential, and the consciousness of the Löbian machine (which are not just universal, they know that they are universal) where the self-reference is made explicit by the machine. It has about the difference between the consciousness of low animals compared to higher vertebrate, although I suspect the cuttlefish and some others invertebrate to have it too. Bruno > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3442bea9-dddc-4452-be42-72dbf18166a2%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3442bea9-dddc-4452-be42-72dbf18166a2%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CACC11BA-B30E-4C3E-8558-092DCE1A8A28%40ulb.ac.be.
