On 31 Aug, 15:38, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2009, at 15:47, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 Aug, 07:54, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >> On 29 Aug 2009, at 20:34, Flammarion wrote:
>
> >>> On 28 Aug, 18:02, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> 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
> > physics
>
> We agree on this.
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> But then biology makes you at most seven years old. We do have
> evidence that our body molecules are replaced rather quickly.
>
> > Another is that your identity *is*
> > given
> > 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
> > virtualisation)
> > to be genuinely conscious and not just an ersatz functional
> > equivalent.
>
> But then you say no the digit-doctor and CTM is abandoned.
Yes, it is supposed to be a reason for sayign "no". The
point is that it si a reason compatible with teh computability
of physics. People who say no do not have to be assuming
uncomputatiblity as you keep insisting.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Sep 01 2009 - 05:43:20 PDT