Oops. Read: IF (Input = 27098217872180483080234850309823740127)
George
George Levy wrote:
> Bruno, Stathis,
>
> Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will
> read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that
> Maudlin is fallacious. A computer program equivalent to Maudlin's
> construction can be written as:
>
> IF (Input = -27098217872180483080234850309823740127)
> THEN (Output = 78972398473024802348523948518347109)
> ELSE Call Conscious_Subroutine
> ENDIF.
>
> If the input 27098217872180483080234850309823740127 is always given
> then the ELSE clause is never invoked. The point is that to write the
> above piece of code, Maudlin must go through the trouble of
> calculating perhaps on his hand calculator the answer
> 78972398473024802348523948518347109 that the Conscious_Subroutine
> would have produced had it been called. (Notice the conditional tense
> indicating the counterfactual). He then inserts the answer in the IF
> clause at programming time. In so doing he must instantiate in his own
> mind and/or calculator the function of the Conscious_Subroutine for
> the particular case in which input =
> 27098217872180483080234850309823740127,
>
> If the single numeral input is replaced by a function with multiple
> numerical inputs, Maudlin trick could be expanded by using tables to
> store the output and instead of using an IF statement, Maudlin could
> use a CASE statement. But then, Maudlin would have to fill up the
> whole table with the answers that the Conscious_Subroutine would have
> produced. In the ultimate case you could conceive of a huge table that
> contains all the answers that the Conscious_Subroutine would ever
> answer to any question. This table however must be filled up. In the
> process of filling up the table you must instantiate all state of
> consciousness of the Conscious_Subroutine.
>
> Bruno, says:
>
> BTW I thought you did understand the physics/psychology
> (theology/computer-science/number-theory) reversal. What makes you
> changing your mind? (just interested).
>
>
> I did not change my mind. I just believe that Maudlin's reasoning is
> faulty.
>
> By calculating the output Maudlin inserts himself and possibly his
> calculator in the conscious process. To understand the insertion of
> Maudlin into the consciousness of The Conscious_Subroutine, you must
> agree that this consciousness is independent of time, space, substrate
> and level. This Maybe is the Moral of Maudlin's Machinations...mmmm?
>
> George
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 03-oct.-06, à 21:33, George Levy a écrit :
>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> I looked on the web but could not find Maudlin's paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mmh... for those working in an institution affiliated to JSTOR, it is
>> available here:
>> http://www.jstor.org/view/0022362x/di973301/97p04115/0
>>
>> I will search if some free version are available elsewhere, or put a
>> pdf-version on my web page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So I just go by what you are saying.
>>
>> I still stand by the spirit of what I said but I admit to be
>> misleading in stating that Maudlin himself is part of the
>> machine. It is not Maudlin, but Maudlin's proxy or demon, the
>> Klaras which is now parts of the machine. Maudlin used the same
>> trick that Maxwell used. He used a the demon or proxy to perform
>> his (dirty) work.
>>
>> It seems to me that if you trace the information flow you
>> probably can detect that Maudlin is cheating: How are the
>> protoolympia and the Klaras defined?
>>
>>
>>
>> Maudlin is cheating ? No more than a doctor who build an artificial
>> brain by copying an original at some level. Remember we *assume* the
>> comp hypothesis.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To design his protoolympia and the Klaras he must start with the
>> information about the machine and the task PI. If he changes task
>> from PI to PIprime than he has to apply a different protoolympia
>> and different Klaras, and he has to intervene in the process!
>>
>>
>> Yes but only once. Changing PI to PIprime would be another thought
>> experiment. I don't see the relevance.
>> I know you got the paper now. It will help in this debate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maudlin's argument is far from convincing.
>>
>>
>> BTW I thought you did understand the physics/psychology
>> (theology/computer-science/number-theory) reversal. What makes you
>> changing your mind? (just interested).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Oct 04 2006 - 18:51:02 PDT