On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 7:35:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Apr 2020, at 01:11, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree completely with Strawson that the type of qualia-free
> computational approach suggested by some is nothing but *zombieism*.
>
>
>
> The whole point of incompleteness is that it assures that the logic of []p
> & p, which is undefinable by the machine about itself, obeys a different
> logic than the logic of []p, which is qualia-free indeed. But machines
> knows that, and eventually learn to distinguish []p (the virtual body) from
> []p & p, the logic of the soul. That difference is what the machine needs
> to understand the difference between I (full of directly accessible qualia)
> and you (where I need my intellect to attribute, or not, some qualia to a
> (third) person.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All the viable computational frameworks (like Donald Hoffmann's) - when
> closely examined - depend on this:
>
> *Conscious agent networks:*
> *Formal analysis and application to cognition*
> http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/CA-circuits-CSR-rev.pdf
>
> The CA framework says nothing about the nature of experience. It says
> nothing about qualia;* it simply assumes that qualia exist*, that agents
> experience them, and that they can be tokened.
>
>
> There would have to be "revolution" (or at least "updating") in the
> current scientific vocabulary of physics - the vocabulary conventionally
> written in 2020 - to match the Strawson view. (CHIMP: consciousnessive
> hypo-intrinsic massless particle). But that is perfectly OK, since physics
> or any science - as written - is not a fixed catechism, like the Ten
> Commandments written in stone for Moses.
>
> (I am not quite happy with Bruno's response, but it is better.)
>
>
>
> I agree that the CA miss the point. But Strawson evade the interesting
> questions, and he seems to miss the fact that computer science does provide
> the tools to address such questions, at least if we bet on Mechanism (like
> Darwin). To use Chalmers’ expression, Strawson and CA only agrees the
> simple “consciousness” problem, and avoid the hard problem, that is the
> metaphysical mind-body problem.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
To adopt a numerical framing, the qualia are either computable numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number
(the traditional AI approach is with computable numbers) or they are
*uncomputable
numbers* - which are numbers that are not computable! (Simple enough.)
There Roger Penrose says as much, after this point.
>
@58min <https://twitter.com/58min>
(approx.) Penrose: quantum-state "collapse" produces proto-consciousness,
the opposite of consciousness produces the "collapse" "Roger Penrose:
Physics of Consciousness and the Infinite Universe | AI Podcast #85 with
Lex Fridman" on YouTube https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0
<https://t.co/sbwq31Dc7v?amp=1>
@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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f31576fb-c0f9-46f9-94b8-844b73b6ed6e%40googlegroups.com.
