Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 23 May 2009, at 06:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 May 2009, at 18:25, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
>>>> universe that it could be made conscious,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But a computer is never conscious, nor is a brain. Only a person is
>>> conscious, and a computer or a brain can only make it possible for a
>>> person to be conscious relatively to another computer. So your
>>> question is ambiguous.
>>> It is not my brain which is conscious, it is me who is conscious.
>>>
>> By "me" do you mean some computation in Platonia? I'm wondering what
>> are the implications of your theory for creating "artificial"
>> consciousness. Since comp starts with the assumption that replacing
>> one's brain with functionally identical units (at some level of
>> detail)
>> will make no discernable difference in your experience, it entails
>> that
>> a computer that functionally replaces your brain is conscious
>> (conscious
>> of being you in fact). So if I want to build a conscious robot from
>> scratch, not by copying someone's brain, what must I do?
>>
>
>
> I don't see the problem, besides the obvious and usual difficulties of
> artificial intelligence.
> Actually if you implement a theorem prover for Peano Arithmetic (=
> Robinson Arithmetic + the induction axioms) I am willing to say that
> you have build a conscious entity.
>
But why? Why not RA without induction? Is it necessary that there be
infinite schema? Since you phrase your answer as "I am willing..." is
it a matter of your intuition or is it a matter of "degree" of
consciousness.
Brent
> It is the entity that I interview (thanks to the work of Gödel, Löb
> and Solovay).
> The person related to it, which I identify with the knower (obeying to
> the theaetetical logic of "provable(p) & p")
> exist simultaneously in all the possible relative implementations of
> it in platonia or in UD* (the universal deployment).
> I mean it is the same for a copy of me, or an intelligent robot build
> from scratch. Both "person" exist in an atemporal and aspatial ways in
> Platonia, and will appear concrete to any entity belonging to some
> computation where they can manifest themselves.
> Like numbers. 17 exists in Platonia, but 17 has multiple
> implementation in many computations in Platonia.
>
> I guess I miss something because I don't see any problem here. You may
> elaborate perhaps. We are in the seven step here. Are you sure you
> grasp the six preceding steps?
>
> 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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat May 23 2009 - 00:08:35 PDT