Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

Also, >> The strong AI thesis is that such machine would be conscious > > > Where is the world did you get that idea? The term "strong AI thesis" was > invented by working scientists AFAIK, the term "Strong AI" was introduced by John Searle, a Professor of Philosophy. I am not sure what

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 1 Jan 2018, at 18:31, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​The strong AI thesis is that such machine would be conscious > > ​Where is the world did you get that idea?

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 28 Dec 2017, at 17:09, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes > wro​te​ > > ​> ​If you read your own email, you will see that the definition that you > give is not the same as

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 17 Jan 2018, at 23:10, David Nyman wrote: > > On 17 January 2018 at 15:41, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 15 Jan 2018, at 16:43, David Nyman > > wrote: >> >> On 15

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 18 Jan 2018 00:42, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/17/2018 2:10 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​I agree. I didn't elaborate in the interests of being short, Nevertheless, the evolutionary 'selection' argument must, necessarily, rest ultimately on extrinsic or 3p behaviour (again

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/17/2018 2:10 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​I agree. I didn't elaborate in the interests of being short, Nevertheless, the evolutionary 'selection' argument must, necessarily, rest ultimately on extrinsic or 3p behaviour (again at the appropriate 'substitution' level). And on

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 14 Jan 2018, at 21:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/14/2018 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jan 2018, at 01:36, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote:

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 14 Jan 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/14/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves >>> >>> I understand those criticisms of Searle and they may be

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 14 Jan 2018, at 19:42, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/14/2018 3:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No examination of its own body will convince it otherwise, because that examination is always in terms of the *phenomena* entailed (or 'revealed') as a

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/14/2018 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2018, at 01:36, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" > wrote:

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/14/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves I understand those criticisms of Searle and they may be right.  But note that arithmetic and computation are nothing like experience either and all the

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/14/2018 3:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No examination of its own body will convince it otherwise, because that examination is always in terms of the *phenomena* entailed (or 'revealed') as a consequence of its formal structure, and not directly in terms of that structure

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 12 Jan 2018, at 01:36, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" > > wrote: >> >> >> On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: >>> >>>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 11 Jan 2018, at 00:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: >> On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: >>> Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are >>> neural activity and the experience of

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 10 Jan 2018, at 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: >> Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are >> neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the >> former causes

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 14 January 2018 at 11:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2018, at 20:23, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 10 Jan 2018 13:48, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman wrote: > > On 7

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 12 Jan 2018 00:36, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" wrote:

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of the physical environment as encoding 'information' independent of interpretation. This

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of the physical environment as encoding 'information' independent of interpretation. This objection can be dealt with by the reversal, Can it?  Isn't it just

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 10 January 2018 at 23:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only > are neural activity and the experience of

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the former /causes /the latter just as water is “caused” by H_2

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the former /causes /the latter just as water is “caused” by H_2 O. This is desperate stuff: one could

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 10 Jan 2018 13:48, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman wrote: On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Jan 2018

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman wrote:On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman wrote:On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" wrote:On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 7 Jan 2018, at 19:35, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/7/2018 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jan 2018, at 20:39, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/6/2018 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/7/2018 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Jan 2018, at 20:39, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 1/6/2018 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is the Mars Rover conscious? Probably not, because, despite it run a conscious universal machine, Mars

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 6 Jan 2018, at 20:39, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/6/2018 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Is the Mars Rover conscious? >> >> Probably not, because, despite it run a conscious universal machine, Mars >> Rover itself might not be universal, and still less

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" > wrote: > >> On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman > > wrote: >> >> >>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 01:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 4/01/2018 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Yes, in my Conscience and Mechanism appendices, or in the appendice of the >> Lille thesis. I translated a Bell’s inequality in arithmetic, but cannot >> test it due

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 04:03:19PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > That relies on a particular classification of 'animals'. I consider that > many birds and fish (as well as most mammals) could well be conscious. > Insects, arachnids, and nematodes might well be different -- but they are >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 7/01/2018 3:33 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 04:30:35PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: Other things seem possible, such as the extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals can be conscious. That is an extraordinary claim, and

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 04:30:35PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > > Other things seem possible, such as the > > extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals can be conscious. > > That is an extraordinary claim, and sufficient in itself to falsify

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The existence of the computations in arithmetic is a fact of the same type > that 6 is not prime, just lengthier to prove. > Proof is not the same as truth, as a logician you should know that. I don't know what

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Jan 2018 19:27, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jan 2018 18:16,

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 5 Jan 2018 19:27, "Bruno Marchal" > wrote: > >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman > > wrote: >> >> >>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/6/2018 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is the Mars Rover conscious? Probably not, because, despite it run a conscious universal machine, Mars Rover itself might not be universal, and still less Löbian. I should see the program to be sure of this, of course. But it does not implement

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 6 Jan 2018, at 06:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 6/01/2018 7:11 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 5 Jan 2018, at 04:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 6 Jan 2018, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:22:08PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> The original suggestion by Russell was that "our human consciousness _is_ a >> computation (and nothing but a computation)." >> >> You seem to be

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:19, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​​in their work real AI scientists don't use personal pronouns with no >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 20:44, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​​in their work real AI scientists don't use personal pronouns with no > clear referent, ​nor silly homemade

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

Somebody wrote: "So there are probably grades of consciousness, just as there are grades of ability to communicate. Cats, dogs, and some birds, are quite high on this scale, but jellyfish are probably quite low. But can you rule out the possibility that some environmental awareness does not

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:29:44 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 6/01/2018 4:59 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/5/2018 9:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > Other things seem possible, such as the > extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

Le 6 janv. 2018 7:29 AM, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 6/01/2018 4:59 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/5/2018 9:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: Other things seem possible, such as the extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 15:06, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman > wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 5 Jan 2018 19:27, "Bruno Marchal" > wrote: > >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman > > wrote: >> >> >>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 6/01/2018 4:59 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/5/2018 9:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: Other things seem possible, such as the extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals can be conscious. That is an extraordinary claim, and sufficient in itself to

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/5/2018 9:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: Other things seem possible, such as the extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals can be conscious. That is an extraordinary claim, and sufficient in itself to falsify your theory. I know as a fact

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: Other things seem possible, such as the extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals can be conscious. That is an extraordinary claim, and sufficient in itself to falsify your theory. I know as a fact that my cat is conscious, and that my various

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 03:33:44PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 6/01/2018 11:50 am, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:22:08PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > The original suggestion by Russell was that "our human consciousness _is_ > > > a > > > computation (and nothing

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 6/01/2018 7:11 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Jan 2018, at 04:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 6/01/2018 11:50 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:22:08PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: The original suggestion by Russell was that "our human consciousness _is_ a computation (and nothing but a computation)." You seem to be steering away from Russell's straightforward

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 09:11:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I think you sur-interpret Russell, which might have commit “abuse of > language”, forgetting not all knows we have already discussed this. I don’t > know. His theory mentioned all infinite strings, that is the reals, which are

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:22:08PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The original suggestion by Russell was that "our human consciousness _is_ a > computation (and nothing but a computation)." > > You seem to be steering away from Russell's straightforward position. If > human consciousness is a

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 Jan 2018 23:42, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/5/2018 3:02 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 5 January 2018 at 22:52, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 2:17 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > To take a more realistic example. >> > > ​I do so love your

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/5/2018 3:02 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 5 January 2018 at 22:52, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 1/5/2018 2:17 PM, David Nyman wrote: To take a more realistic example. ​I do so love your appropriation of ​the terms

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 22:52, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 2:17 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > To take a more realistic example. >> > > ​I do so love your appropriation of ​the terms 'real' and 'realistic' to > your own theories. > > > I think a Mars Rover reporting its

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 20:41, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 4:00 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: > > On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/5/2018 2:17 PM, David Nyman wrote: To take a more realistic example. ​I do so love your appropriation of ​the terms 'real' and 'realistic' to your own theories. I think a Mars Rover reporting its battery is low is more realistic than it seeing an apple in the most common sense

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 6:48 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 January 2018 at 14:06, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 5 Jan

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 2:16:56 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:19 PM, wrote: > > ​> ​ >>> You >>> seem to believe in a primary >>> ​mathematical​ >>> universe >>> ​, ​but matter by itself can do mathematics however mathematics by >>>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/5/2018 6:48 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 5 January 2018 at 14:06, Jason Resch > wrote: On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman > wrote: On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:19 PM, wrote: ​> ​ >> You >> seem to believe in a primary >> ​mathematical​ >> universe >> ​, ​but matter by itself can do mathematics however mathematics by itself >> can't do matter. >> > > ​> ​ > But that's what the MWI does! It creates

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/5/2018 4:00 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​in their work real AI scientists don't use personal pronouns with no >>> clear referent, ​nor silly homemade terminology. >> >> >> ​>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 04:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29,

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 Jan 2018 19:27, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jan 2018 18:16, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 January 2018 at

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​in their work real AI scientists don't use personal pronouns with no >> clear referent, ​nor silly homemade terminology. > > > ​> ​ > See my papers for the mathematical definitions of all pronouns > ​Right, just

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 4 Jan 2018 18:16, "Bruno Marchal" > wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman > > wrote: >> >> On 4

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 14:06, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman wrote: > >> >> >> On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: >> >> On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On Jan 4,

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: > > On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> On

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 4 Jan 2018 18:16, "Bruno Marchal" > wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman > > wrote: >> >> On 4

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/4/2018 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 04:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 5/01/2018 1:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: >> On Thursday, January 4, 2018, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> > wrote: >> On 4/01/2018

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/01/2018 1:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thursday, January 4, 2018, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On 4/01/2018 6:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5/01/2018 1:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thursday, January 4, 2018, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 4/01/2018 6:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-01-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5/01/2018 12:18 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-01-04 12:36 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 4/01/2018 6:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-01-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: This is computationalism - the

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4/01/2018 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, in my Conscience and Mechanism appendices, or in the appendice of the Lille thesis. I translated a Bell’s inequality in arithmetic, but cannot test it due to its intractability + my own incompetence of course. But Z1* introducing tuns of

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4 Jan 2018 21:04, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/4/2018 5:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 January 2018 at 21:57, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/4/2018 5:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 January 2018 at 21:57, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4 Jan 2018 18:16, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 January 2018 at 11:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/4/2018 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, it could be that intelligent behavior

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 January 2018 at 11:55, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker > > wrote: > > > >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2018-01-04 12:36 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 4/01/2018 6:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2018-01-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> My abacus does not talk to me. >> >> > That would mean no computation are conscious at all...

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: This is computationalism - the idea that our human

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4 January 2018 at 11:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1/2/2018

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/2/2018 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 01 Jan 2018, at 23:38, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> >>> No. I do not commit the fallacy of "Your god is false, so my god is real". >>> I'm willing to say I

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, it could be that intelligent behavior

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: This is computationalism - the idea that our human consciousness _is_ a computation (and nothing but a computation). What distinguishes a conscious

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4/01/2018 6:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-01-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: My abacus does not talk to me. That would mean no computation are conscious at all... No, that does not follow. Even if

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: This is computationalism - the idea that our human

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2018-01-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > My abacus does not talk to me. > > That would mean no computation are conscious at all... technically your abacus is turing complete (well it has to be large enough), so it could run a conscious computation... but that

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

My abacus does not talk to me. Bruce On 29/12/2017 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: ​ > ​ not all computations are conscious. ​ How do you know?​ ​ John K

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/2/2018 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2018, at 23:38, Brent Meeker wrote: No. I do not commit the fallacy of "Your god is false, so my god is real".  I'm willing to say I don't know what must be real. You just did it. You just said in your previews post: " I think

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, it could be that intelligent behavior implies mind, but as you yourself argue, we don't know that. Isn't this at the crux of the scientific study of

  1   2   >