Re: Dreaming On

From: Flammarion <>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:47:46 -0700 (PDT)

On 30 Aug, 07:54, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2009, at 20:34, Flammarion wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 18:02, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> >> On 28 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >> If the physical laws are turing emulable, then whatever is  
> >> responsible
> >> for my consciousness can be Turing emulable at some level (I assume
> >> some form of naturalism/materialism or computationalism).OK? If not,
> >> your brain (generalized or not) does not obeys to the laws of  
> >> physics.
> > That may buy you no more than "mere" simulation. The CTM is a
> > stronger claim than the computability of physics. it means that you
> > will
> > get actual implementation (strong AI) and not just simulation (weak
> > AI)
> In that sense, I am OK here. Actually strong AI is even weaker than  
> CTM.

Be that as it may, neither is directly implied by the computability of

>My reconstitution can believe wrongly that he is me, yet  
> conscious. But I was assuming some naturalism here, and if the  
> physical laws are computable, and I still say no to the doctor, then  
> my identity is no more defined by the computation, but by the actual  
> matter which constitutes me,

That is one reason for saying no. Another is that your identity *is*
by the computation (in line with the idea that PM is propertiless),
and that
the computation needs to run "on the metal" (at 00 levelsof
to be genuinely conscious and not just an ersatz functional

>and then comp (CTM) is no more correct  
> (although strong AI could still be correct).
> Bruno
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Aug 31 2009 - 06:47:46 PDT

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