> On 25 Nov 2020, at 23:52, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <applewebdata://7872839D-0E9C-4098-B4B2-B7E26D37E924>> wrote: > > > The Conscious Turing Machine > arXiv: > https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850> > > DEFINITION 1.5.1. At each time t ≥ 0, Short Term Memory holds exactly one > chunk, which is designated the entirety of Conscious Turing Machine's > conscious content. Consciousness in Conscious Turing Machine is defined to be > the awareness (i.e. the reception by all Long Term Memory). It defines the > conscious content of Conscious Turing Machine to be whatever chunk is in > Short Term Memory; and then defines Conscious Awareness by the Conscious > Turing Machineto be the reception by all Long Term Memory processors of Short > Term Memory's broadcast of that content. The gists of those broadcasts may be > viewed as the inner thoughts generated by Conscious Turing Machine's > unconscious processors or the speech, vision, touch, taste, and/or whatever > else is received as input by the Conscious Turing Machine > > Consciousness and awareness mean the same thing, so all the verbiage in the > above could be boiled down to "Consciousness in Conscious Turing Machine > theory is defined to be consciousness" which I don't find to be terribly > helpful. And in the article I don't see even a hint as to how an experimental > test could be performed to see if this "theory" is actually correct. > > John K Clark > > Blum defined a funny sort of meaning to incomputability, which is basically > recursively enumerable.
This is just the usual Turing one, although expressed in a slightly ambiguous way. “Computable” means usually “total computable”. > Blum stated this was incomputable because the computation would not halt and > there is no final output. This differs from Turing's definition in that one > cannot determine if all things halt or do not halt. Halting is “partial computable”. A function is said non computable everywhere it is not defined, and that is itself only partially computable. Partially computable entails partially not computable in case the function is not total. > > The video is sort of long and I am not sure if I have the time to devote to > this. This definition of inner thought being conferred to a system which > exhibits the outward properties of a person known to have inner thoughts is > not much different from the Turing test definition. Yes, and that is why it useless for the mind-body problem. > This is couched in the definition of memory or long term memory as a cache of > short term memories. This seems rather artificial to me. It makes sense for some application, but avoid the usual difficulties, like the whole Aristotelian (weak-materialist) tradition. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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/1d07c3e8-d2cd-41a8-963b-97f9e72ad1fbn%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d07c3e8-d2cd-41a8-963b-97f9e72ad1fbn%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/CBBC39B4-8F4A-477C-8ACD-42852736263B%40ulb.ac.be.
