- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Jacques M Mallah <jqm1584.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:09:06 -0400

On 1 xxx -1, Marchal wrote:

*> Jacques M Mallah wrote:
*

*> > Chalmers includes a
*

*> >reference to Maudlin's paper and obviously does not think it ruled out
*

*> >physical computationalism.
*

*> > BTW Chalmers' own proposed solution in that paper is
*

*> >unsatisfactory, and he admits it, hence the need for proposals such as
*

*> >mine.
*

*>
*

*> And you admit (if I read correctly your URL) that your proposal (for
*

*> the implementation problem) is also still unsatisfactory.
*

*> There is indeed an "implementation" problem.
*

I think the idea of my proposal is basically correct, but it needs

refinement. It should be made more precise and possible to state more

simply and must be tested with a barrage of proposed implementations that

must be declared "true" or "false". But in research it is to be expected

that it may take several tries (and maybe several people) to get something

right. I'm being cautious because I've already tried and rejected a

number of ideas that seemed good at the time.

Currently it has not been proven that the problem can be solved or

that my proposal does so, and it also has not been proven that this is not

the case. It may well be impossible to either find a solution or to prove

that one does not exist.

*> My feeling (let us say) is that
*

*> this problem is *fatal* for the physical computationalist (like you ;
*

*> BTW thanks for this nice expression).
*

*> What I JUST show in my thesis is that IF the mathematical (arithmetical
*

*> is enough)
*

*> computationalist solve the "implementation problem" (your term) THEN
*

*> she will justify the origin of the appearance of the physical laws and
*

*> solve the mind body problem.
*

I don't see much difference is this respect between the 'math' and

'physics' versions. You still want a 'math' computation that simulates

the universe to implement a brain computation, so you need the same kind

of solution to the implementation problem. Without this you have almost

no chance to get the right predictions but the universe is less complex

than the brain.

- - - - - - -

Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)

Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate

"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum

My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Received on Fri Jul 02 1999 - 09:10:10 PDT

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:09:06 -0400

On 1 xxx -1, Marchal wrote:

I think the idea of my proposal is basically correct, but it needs

refinement. It should be made more precise and possible to state more

simply and must be tested with a barrage of proposed implementations that

must be declared "true" or "false". But in research it is to be expected

that it may take several tries (and maybe several people) to get something

right. I'm being cautious because I've already tried and rejected a

number of ideas that seemed good at the time.

Currently it has not been proven that the problem can be solved or

that my proposal does so, and it also has not been proven that this is not

the case. It may well be impossible to either find a solution or to prove

that one does not exist.

I don't see much difference is this respect between the 'math' and

'physics' versions. You still want a 'math' computation that simulates

the universe to implement a brain computation, so you need the same kind

of solution to the implementation problem. Without this you have almost

no chance to get the right predictions but the universe is less complex

than the brain.

- - - - - - -

Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)

Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate

"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum

My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Received on Fri Jul 02 1999 - 09:10:10 PDT

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