From: Marchal <>
Date: Tue Jun 29 12:00:01 1999

Jacques M Mallah wrote

> Bruno wrote:
>> The problem here is that the "physics" cannot distinguish a
>> counterfactually correct (CFC) firing of a neuron (for exemple) and an
>> accidentally correct (ACC) firing of a neuron.
> Sure it can.

How ?

May be a kind of "infinite physics" a la Jacques Bailhache() would be able to do the job. But in that case: bye bye comp !

>So much for your alleged proof. There's nothing in
>it. It just presents an example of a physical situation in which a
>computation is not implemented, and claims that consciousness would not be
>present in that situation.

Euh... I think there is a little more. You really should read Maudlin.
He is more clear than me. It is in English !
Maudlin shows that you can take a piece of matter in which
no computation is implemented, and transform it, without adding physical activity, into something in which a computation is implemented.
I guess it will hard for you to believe that because you are so convinced that the physics is able to distinguish CFC from ACC.
BTW, the "physics" is what we try to explain.

> Of course Wei Dai does not find it absurd; his position is that it
>would be conscious. I'd call him a 'structuralist'.

I am not sure Wei Dai takes the physical for granted. I would
prefer to call him a 'relative structuralist' (with all my respect).
The relative "measure" linked to the "filmed computation" is linked to the possible
infinite histories themselves linked to the computation states captured in the graph.
I agree it is counter-intuitive because it makes consciousness out of time and of space, but it could explain (precisely, once we get the measure) how beliefs in time and beliefs in space (and belief in anything at all) can emerge from computation and arithmetic.


() Look in the archive.
Received on Tue Jun 29 1999 - 12:00:01 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST