Re: MGA revisited paper

On 18 August 2014 15:20, meekerdb wrote: > On 8/17/2014 8:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which exist >> necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene on the physics. >> >> >> Yes, I agreed to that. The question was can conscious

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR wrote: > On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part of >> a computation that instantiates physics - instantiates a whole universe >> complete with physics. > > > It would need to

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR wrote: > > On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> > >> I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part > of > >> a computation that instantiates physics - instantiates a

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On Monday, August 18, 2014 5:33:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > On 8/17/2014 5:43 AM, Pierz wrote: > > Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes > to the doctor. > > It's cowardly of me, but I think I'd like to see the device work on > someone else first. > > If

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 17 Aug 2014, at 14:43, Pierz wrote: Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes to the doctor. Nor do I. Actually, even if comp is true, I might say "no", because I might not trust the doctor's skill, or the choice of the level. It's cowardly of me, but I

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 2:48:48 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > On 8/8/2014 8:34 PM, Pierz wrote: > > In "The Conscious Mind", Chalmers bases his claim that materialism has > failed to provide an explanation for consciousness on a distinction between > 'logical' and 'natural' supervenience,

Re: dot dot dot

On 17 Aug 2014, at 06:28, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2014 4:57 PM, James Lindsay wrote: Hi Brent, Thanks for the note. I like the thought about mathematics as a refinement of language. I also think of it as a specialization of philosophy, or even a highly distilled variant upon it with limit

Re: dot dot dot

On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:23, LizR wrote: PS You do know you can delete posts from the EL, don't you? But not from the mail boxes. Besides, I am against all post deletions, except on facebook when people use your wall for advertising, or when they repeat insults. What would be nice is an a

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 17, 2014, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 8/16/2014 10:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb wrote: >> > On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> > > I think the

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On Monday, August 18, 2014 9:19:32 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Aug 2014, at 14:43, Pierz wrote: > > Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes to > the doctor. > > > Nor do I. > > Actually, even if comp is true, I might say "no", because I might not

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 18 August 2014 12:19, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the arithmetical realism suggests the existence of approximation of > physical realities, without observers. The falling leaf will make a sound > (a 3p wave), but of course, without observers, there will be no perception > or qualia actualized th

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 18 August 2014 14:15, Pierz wrote: OK that may be true, but without an observer, nothing will exist to select > out that computation from the chaotic infinities. I don't know how you can > say that the leaf meaningfully exists, because other computational threads > will destroy the leaf instan

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 8/18/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote: On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I think that

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 8/18/2014 1:49 AM, Pierz wrote: On Monday, August 18, 2014 5:33:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2014 5:43 AM, Pierz wrote: > Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes to the doctor. > It's cowardly of me, but I think I'd like to see the devi

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you survive, and have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state we might live some "phase transition" between different physical realms. Obviously, we cannot get a physic

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 8/18/2014 4:38 AM, Pierz wrote: On Saturday, August 9, 2014 2:48:48 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 8/8/2014 8:34 PM, Pierz wrote: In "The Conscious Mind", Chalmers bases his claim that materialism has failed to provide an explanation for consciousness on a distinction between 'log

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 16 Aug 2014, at 21:46, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2014 12:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But not everything exist. Only K, S, (K K), (K S) (S K) (S S) ((K K) K), etc. etc. = And you also assume that a UD exists. Not at all. It is a consequence of elementary arithmetic (addition and

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 16 Aug 2014, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2014 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2014, at 02:24, meekerdb wrote: On 8/14/2014 4:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 August 2014 06:51, meekerdb wrote: On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote: That is a weird assumption to me and completely con

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:45, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb wrote: Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which exist necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene on the physics. Yes, I agreed to that. The questio

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 17 Aug 2014, at 08:02, LizR wrote: On 17 August 2014 17:45, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb wrote: Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which exist necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene on the physic

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 18 August 2014 18:35, LizR wrote: > On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR wrote: >> > On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part >> >> of >> >> a comp

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 18 August 2014 23:27, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I'm not entirely clear on Bruno's argument on this last point. The way > I see it, if a brain is simulated by a computer program, what is being > simulated is the physics; and if comp is true, that means that > simulating the physics will also r

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 19 August 2014 06:59, meekerdb wrote: > > You're trying to isolate the consciousness from it's context so that it's > "just" data and patterns and 1s and 0s and neuron pulses. I'm saying > consciousness requires a context, in fact I think it requires a physics. > > This is, I would say, the d

Re: dot dot dot

I wish that often, but then I'm (a) pernickety* about grammar and spelling, and (b) generally in a hurry! *Or a word spelled something like that! On 18 August 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:23, LizR wrote: > > PS You do know you can delete posts from the EL, don't y

Re: dot dot dot

Are you aware of the research by the dating website OKCupid that showed that the best way to find out if your date believes in God, without asking directly, is to ask if they are persnickety about spelling and grammar. "No" indicates a likely believer. "Yes" means a likely atheist. It's pure

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 8/18/2014 4:23 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 18 August 2014 23:27, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: I'm not entirely clear on Bruno's argument on this last point. The way I see it, if a brain is simulated by a computer program, what is being simulated is the phy

Re: Comp and "logical supervenience"

On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you survive, and have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state we might live some "phase transition" between different physical realms. Obviously, we cannot get a physical

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, David Nyman wrote: > On 18 August 2014 23:27, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I'm not entirely clear on Bruno's argument on this last point. The way >> I see it, if a brain is simulated by a computer program, what is being >> simulated is the physics; and if comp is t