On 4/30/2021 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If a program can be said to "know" something then can we also say it
is conscious of that thing?
That's not even common parlance. Conscious thoughts are fleeting.
Knowledge is in memory. I know how to ride a bicycle /because/ I do it
unconsciously. I don't think consciousness can be understood except as
a surface or boundary of the subconscious and the unconscious (physics).
Brent
1) That’s *not* the case for []p & p, unless you accept a notion of
unconscious knowledge, like knowing that Perseverance and Ingenuity
are on Mars, but not being currently thinking about it, so that you
are not right now consciously aware of the fact---well you are, but
just because I have just reminded it :)
2) But that *is* the case for []p & <>t & p. If the machine knows
something in that sense, then the machine can be said to be conscious
of p.
Then to be “simply” conscious, becomes []t & <>t (& t).
Note that “p” always refers to a partially computable arithmetical (or
combinatorical) proposition. That’s the way of translating “Digital
Mechanism” in the language of the machine.
To sum up, to get a conscious machine, you need a computer (aka
universal number/machine) with some notion of belief, and
knowledge/consciousness rise from the actuation of truth, that the
machine cannot define (by the theorem of Tarski and some variant by
Montague, Thomason, and myself...).
That theory can be said a posteriori well tested because it implied
the quantum reality, at least the one described by the Schroedinger
equation or Heisenberg matrix (or even better Feynman Integral),
WITHOUT any collapse postulate.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a81f3dcd-2120-d2fd-598b-3b80fbd9f8c3%40verizon.net.
