David,
Le 17-juin-07, à 18:28, David Nyman a écrit :
> IMHO this semantic model gives you a knock-down argument against
> 'computationalism', *unless* one identifies (I'm hoping to hear from
> Bruno on this) the 'primitive' entities and operators with those of
> the number realm - i.e. you make
Le 19-juin-07, à 10:55, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote (to Torgny Tholerus)
> TT: The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You
> can make computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers
> are enough complicated.
>
> But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view.
On 28/06/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BM: I agree completely.
DN: A good beginning!
BM: .but I am not yet convinced that you appreciate my
methodological way of proceeding.
DN: That may well be so. In that case it's interesting that we reached the
same conclusion.
B
Le 19-juin-07, à 21:27, Brent Meeker wrote to Quentin:
>
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
>> The "subjective experience" is
Le 21-juin-07, à 01:07, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> On Jun 5, 3:12 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Personally I don' think we can be *personally* mistaken about our own
>> consciousness even if we can be mistaken about anything that
>> consciousness could be about.
>
> I agree wi
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
> But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
> (especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
> explain it completely.
That sentence is wrong. There is at least one person (me...) that
really doubts about my own consciousness. I am consciou
On 28/06/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bruno
The remarks you comment on are certainly not the best-considered or most
cogently expressed of my recent posts. However, I'll try to clarify if you
have specific questions. As to why I said I'd rather not use the term
'consciousness
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Bruno Marchal skrev:
> > But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
> > (especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
> > explain it completely.
>
> That sentence is wrong.
Don't think so...
> There is at
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive. Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.
I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness in the
first
On Thursday 28 June 2007 19:22:35 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
> Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive. Therefore
> human beings show that type of behaviour.
>
> I don't know what is consciouslike
This is not fair to Penrose. He has convincingly argued in 'Shadows of
the Mind' that human mathematical intelligence cannot be a knowably
sound algorithm.
Assume X is an algorithm representing the human mathematical
intelligence. The point is not that man cannot recognize X as
representing his
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 19-juin-07, à 21:27, Brent Meeker wrote to Quentin:
>
>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
>>>
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>> But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
>>> (especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
>>> explain it completely.
>> That sentence is wrong.
>
> Don
LauLuna wrote:
>
>
>
>This is not fair to Penrose. He has convincingly argued in 'Shadows of
>the Mind' that human mathematical intelligence cannot be a knowably
>sound algorithm.
>
>Assume X is an algorithm representing the human mathematical
>intelligence. The point is not that man cannot recog
On Thursday 28 June 2007 21:59:40 Brent Meeker wrote:
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> >> Bruno Marchal skrev:
> >>> But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
> >>> (especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
For any Turing machine there is an equivalent axiomatic system;
whether we could construct it or not, is of no significance here.
Reading your link I was impressed by Russell Standish's sentence:
'I cannot prove this statement'
and how he said he could not prove it true and then proved it true.
LauLuna wrote:
>
>
>For any Turing machine there is an equivalent axiomatic system;
>whether we could construct it or not, is of no significance here.
But for a simulation of a mathematician's brain, the axioms wouldn't be
statements about arithmetic which we could inspect and judge whether the
17 matches
Mail list logo
