Sorry Bruno, no disrespect, I meant to type "Hi Bruno".
George
George Levy wrote:
> Ho Bruno
>
> Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been
> lumping together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and
> an "objective platonic world". So you are right, I do reject
Ho Bruno
Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been lumping
together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and an
"objective platonic world". So you are right, I do reject the objective
physical world, but why stop there? Is there a need for an objective
platoni
Hi George,
I think that we agree on the main line. Note that I never have
pretended that the conjunction of comp and weak materialism (the
doctrine which asserts the existence of primary matter) gives a
contradiction. What the filmed-graph and/or Maudlin shows is that comp
makes materialism
e
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I think that Maudlin refers to the conjunction of the comp hyp and
> supervenience, where consciousness is supposed to be linked (most of
> the time in a sort of "real-time" way) to the *computational activity*
> of the brain, and not to the history of any of the state o
Hi George,
Le 03-oct.-07, à 01:52, George Levy a écrit :
> Hi Bruno,
> Yes I am still on the list, barely trying to keep up, but I have been
> very busy. Actually the ball was in my court and I was supposed to
> answer to your last post to me about a year ago!!!. Generally I agree
> with y
Oops: replace Newton's demon by Maxwell's demon.
George
George Levy wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
> Yes I am still on the list, barely trying to keep up, but I have been
> very busy. Actually the ball was in my court and I was supposed to
> answer to your last post to me about a year ago!!!. Generally I a
Hi Bruno,
Yes I am still on the list, barely trying to keep up, but I have been
very busy. Actually the ball was in my court and I was supposed to
answer to your last post to me about a year ago!!!. Generally I agree
with you on many things but here I am just playing the devils' advocate.
The M
Hi George,
Are you still there on the list?
I am really sorry to (re)discover your post just now, with a label
saying that I have to answer it, but apparently I didn't. So here is
the answer, with a delay of about one year :(
Le 08-oct.-06, à 08:00, George Levy wrote :
> Finally I read you
Le 11-oct.-06, à 05:46, George Levy a écrit :
Therefore from the point of view of the second machine, the first machine appears conscious. Note that for the purpose of the argument WE don't have to assume initially that the second machine IS conscious, only that it can detect if the first mac
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-oct.-06, à 21:54, George Levy a écrit :
To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer
who
is also split,
?
This is simple. The time/space/substrate/level of the observer must
match the time/space/substrate/level of what he observes. T
s and responds consciously - at its own level. Not at the
level of I.Kant.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
George Levy
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 5:55
PM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon
(Argument)
David Nyman wro
Le 09-oct.-06, à 21:54, George Levy a écrit :
To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer who is also split,
?
in sync with the split consciousness, across time, space, substrate and level (a la Zelazny - Science Fiction writer). In your example, for an observer to see consciousness
David Nyman wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:54 pm, George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer who is also
split, in sync with the split consciousness, across time, space,
substrate and level (a la Zelazny - Science Fiction writer). In your
e
On Oct 9, 8:54 pm, George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer who is also
> split, in sync with the split consciousness, across time, space,
> substrate and level (a la Zelazny - Science Fiction writer). In your
> example, for an observer to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-oct.-06, à 08:00, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno,
Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf
is not accessible any
Le 08-oct.-06, à 08:00, George Levy a écrit :
>
> Bruno,
>
> Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
> computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf
> is not accessible anymore. I am not sure why.
--
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
John Mikes writes:
> Stathis, your post is 'logical', 'professional', 'smart', - good.
> It shows
for an opposing point-of-view - the establishment guards its
integrity against new theories (enlarged models).
John
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
Le 07-oct.-06, à 22:24, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> "my" reductionism is simple: we have a circle of knowledge base
> and view
> the world as limited INTO such model. Well, it is not. The
> reductionist view
> enabled homo to step up into technological prowess but did not support
>
Bruno,
Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf
is not accessible anymore. I am not sure why.)
In page TROIS -61 you describe an experience of cons
Brent Meeker writes:
> > I did put in parentheses "this of course assumes a robot can have
> > experiences".
> > We can't know that this is so, but it seems a reasonable assumption to me.
> > If we
> > had evolution with digital processors rather than biological processors do
> > you think
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> John Mikes writes:
>
>
>>Stathis, your post is 'logical', 'professional', 'smart', - good.
>>It shows why we have so many posts on this list and why we get nowhere.
>>You handle an assumption (robot) - its qualia, characteristics, make up a
>>"thought-situation" and
tional
> effects
> may be at play in a biological brain, which would then be an argument
> against
> computationalism.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> > Stathis:
> > let me skip the quoted texts and ask a particular question.
> > - Original Message -
> >
Please see some remarks interleft between -lines.
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
Le 05-oct.-06, à 13:55, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a
-- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
John,
I should have been more precise with the terms "copy" and "emulate".
What I was asking is whethe
Le 05-oct.-06, à 13:55, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Can we 'emulate' totality? I don't think so.
I don't always insist on that but with just the "Church thesis" part of
comp, it can be argued that we can emulate the third person describable
totality, and indeed this is what the Universal
t me skip the quoted texts and ask a particular question.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:41 PM
> Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
> You wrote:
> Do you believe it is
George Levy wrote:
> The correct conclusion IMHO is that consciousness is independent of
> time, space, substrate and level and in fact can span all of these just
> as Maudlin partially demonstrated - but you still need an implementation
> -- so what is left? Like the Cheshire cat, nothing except
identify
'comp' as I like (need) it. (Same for 'numbers' and 'consciousness).
John
- Original Message -
From: "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Dem
ever be
completely sure whether he was deliberately torturing your credulity by
putting these forward as tongue-in-cheek reductios (like Schroedinger
with his cat apparently) or whether he was actually serious. I'll have
to re-read the book.
David
> - Original Message -
> Subject:
Stathis:
let me skip the quoted texts and ask a particular question.
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
You wrote:
Do you believe it is possible
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
(Brent's quote):
> David Nyman wrote:
(I skip the discussion...)
>
> >In other words, a 'computation' can be
> > anything I say it is (cf. Hofstadter for some particularly egregious
>
Brent Meeker wrote:
> There is another possibility: that consciousness is relative to what it is
> conscious
> *of* and any computation that implements consciousness must also implement
> the whole
> world which the consciousness is conscious of. In that case there may be
> only one,
> unique
Le 05-oct.-06, à 04:01, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> There is another possibility: that consciousness is relative to what
> it is conscious
> *of* and any computation that implements consciousness must also
> implement the whole
> world which the consciousness is conscious of. In that case there
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
>
>
>>David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>>Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Maudlin say aha - lets take the recording, and add to it an inert
machine that handles the counterfactuals. This combined machine is
computationally equivalent to the
Brent Meeker writes:
> David Nyman wrote:
> > Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Maudlin say aha - lets take the recording, and add to it an inert
> >>machine that handles the counterfactuals. This combined machine is
> >>computationally equivalent to the original. But since the new machine
>
List members
I scanned Maudlin's paper. Thank you Russell. As I suspected I found a
few questionable passages:
Page417: line 14:
"So the spatial sequence of the troughs need not reflect their
'computational sequence'. We may so contrive that any sequence of
address lie next to each other spa
---
> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:26:44 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
>
> Bruno, Stathis,
> Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I
David Nyman wrote:
> Russell Standish wrote:
>
>
>>Maudlin say aha - lets take the recording, and add to it an inert
>>machine that handles the counterfactuals. This combined machine is
>>computationally equivalent to the original. But since the new machine
>>is physically equivalent to a record
Russell Standish wrote:
> Maudlin say aha - lets take the recording, and add to it an inert
> machine that handles the counterfactuals. This combined machine is
> computationally equivalent to the original. But since the new machine
> is physically equivalent to a recording, how could consciousne
If I can sumarise George's summary as this:
In order to generate a recording, one must physically instantiate the
conscious computation. Consciousness supervenes on this, presumably.
Maudlin say aha - lets take the recording, and add to it an inert
machine that handles the counterfactuals. This
Oops. Read: IF (Input = 27098217872180483080234850309823740127)
George
George Levy wrote:
Bruno, Stathis,
Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will
read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that Maudlin
is fallacious. A computer program
Bruno, Stathis,
Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will
read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that Maudlin
is fallacious. A computer program equivalent to Maudlin's construction
can be written as:
IF (Input = -27098217872180483080234850309823
Le 03-oct.-06, à 21:33, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno,
I looked on the web but could not find Maudlin's paper.
Mmh... for those working in an institution affiliated to JSTOR, it is available here:
http://www.jstor.org/view/0022362x/di973301/97p04115/0
I will search if some free version are ava
Bruno,
I looked on the web but could not find Maudlin's paper. So I just go by
what you are saying.
I still stand by the spirit of what I said but I admit to be misleading
in stating that Maudlin himself is part of the machine. It is not
Maudlin, but Maudlin's proxy or demon, the Klaras whic
45 matches
Mail list logo
