Re: on simply being an SAS

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu Dec 23 07:32:20 1999

Russell Standish wrote:

>Machines, however I'm reasonably comfortable that they should be
>capable of universal computation. I'm slightly less comfortable in
>assuming that they are consistent, but let's press on assuming that
>this is a property of SASes.
>
>I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I think Bruno has his
>arguments backwards. He starts off assuming a strict form of
>computationalism, then demonstrates via the filmed graph argument that
>this induces a form of computational indeterminism, requiring a many
>worlds picture to resolve it.
>
>>From my perspective, the AUH is the base axiom, and from a AUH or MW
>perspective one can see how counterfactuals and free will enter into a
>deterministic universe, and why the filmed graph argument doesn't
>apply. In particular, the free will issue shows how SASes differ from
>Turing Machines.
>
>BTW - I do believe in a slightly more relaxed version of
>computationalism. For example if your were to replace one of my
>neurons by a machine that modelled that neuron sufficiently
>accurately, I'm sure I would survive. Repeat the process, until no
>more neurons were left, and I have undergone a replacement of my brain
>(and survived), modulo the issue of ensuring that the chemico-hormonal
>system is also modelled sufficiently well.
>
>With a bit more effort (and monstrous internet charges), one could
>arrange for this replacement to happen at a distance, in effect
>performing the teletransportation experiments Bruno describes in his thesis.
>
>I don't believe neurons are Turing emulable - in particular, neurons
>are not perfectly deterministic.
>
>Some of Bruno's results hold for this more relaxed version of
>computationalism. Unfortunately, I don't yet understand his arguments well
>enough to know which ones.

I am not sure I understand you.

Are you saying that you can survive with artificial neurons, but
not with artificial *digital* neurons?
To believe in comp, it is not necessary that neurons are Turing
emulable, only that there is a level such that the relevant working
of the neurons are turing emulable.
And it is not necessary to know the level. It is impossible to know
the level, actually.

Regards,

Bruno
Received on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 07:32:20 PST