> On 21 Jun 2019, at 15:57, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:58 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > CT might be refuted tomorrow, or in ten thousand years. > > I doubt it. Oracles that can do more than a Turing Machine, such as one that > can solve the Halting Problem, produce logical paradoxes.
No. Turing used them to show only that a Turing machine using the Halting Problem is still incomplete, and that it cannot solve the Total-code problems, for example. The oracle does not introduce any paradox, on the contrary, they are used to study the degrees of unsolvability. > > > And the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog, > > continuous process. > > That wouldn't make any difference even if it was true which it almost > certainly isn’t. It would make a difference if all the decimals plays a role in consciousness. Of course, Darwin theory of evolution would become inconsistent, but logically, we cannot exclude the possibility (even if one disbelieve in it personally). > Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on inside of it > when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say when one analog > process gets replaced by another analog process, I STILL survive. That is the mechanist assumption. You can truncate the infinite decimal expansion in the analog process running a brain. > So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the Hydrogen atom's > business not mine, it has nothing to do with me. Assuming that you substitution level is above the truncation of the decimals used in the atom. But a non computationalist can assert that his consciousness requires all decimals. That provides a model in which mechanism is false, which explains why we have to make clear that we *assume* that this is not the case. That can be used to save the notion of some ontological matter, because that can singularise a mind on a body. Once you make the digital truncation, your prediction needs to be made, in principle, by taking into account all the stories with different decimals expansion below the truncation level, and if that is a continuum, as it needs to singularize consciousness on a unique body, I violates Mechanism. > > >> It's far more than just strong evidence, we have rock solid proof for > >> Mechanism as you have defined it, or at least I have. > > > In which theory? > > In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then I have > observed X. You cannot observe a philosophical assumption. We cannot observe universals, or laws. We can infer them from a finite number of observation, but it is inductive inference. That is never provable. > > > A proof is done in a theory. > > Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I have direct > experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant operations. Yes, and that is good for you, but in science, we cannot refer to personal experience to commit oneself ontologically. > > > What I can show is that Mechanism has to be false in any theory which > > commit itself in an ontology richer than RA, > > Then without even reading a word of what you claim to have shown we can > immediately conclude that whatever it is you say it MUST be nonsense because > we know from direct experience that Mechanism, as you have defined it, is > true. Yes, we can know that, like the guy who claims, after getting his artificial digital brain: “yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl …yes, I can assert that I have completely survived and …krikgrl … Personal experience is not available when doing science, except as reports, confirming a theory, not as a proof that the theory is correct, or is not an assumption (my point). > > > You have, I think, rock solid evidence, but no evidence at all can prove > > anything more than the existence of your consciousness for you. By “proof” > > I mean communicable proof to another. > > It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to the doctor > (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my actions to you > or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it is the logical > thing to do. Personally, perhaps. Not sure about the guy above, though. He seems locally convinced that he has survived, but nearby people can doubt it. > > >> and it's as rigorous as proofs get. > > > If you have it, communicate it to us. > > You first. Prove to me you're conscious. I can’t. Indeed, that impossibility is example, as “I am conscious” belongs to SGrz, and it means something clear, trivial and definite, only from the first person point of view. > Prove to me you've survived from yesterday to today. If you are unable to > communicate proof of your survival to me would you have to conclude that you > are dead? Who knows? Not me, but the first person “I” does not admit a mathematical definition, despite with Mechanism, it admits a meta-definition, like the []p & p. “But p is for true(‘p’) which is undefinable by the machine itself. It can be defined by a richer machine, but that richer machine will still be unable to define its own first person self. All this is provable in arithmetic + YD. Bruno > > > You confirm that atheists are the ally of the radical christians, > > In the same way that those who suffer from innumeracy are the allies of > mathematicians. >> >> If Everett is right there is a 100% probability a version of you will >> >> wake up tomorrow in the torture dungeon of a sadist and a 100% >> >> probability a version of you will not. >> >> > Wonderful! You just lifted your step three critics on Everett. >> >> Huh? > > You just said that with Everett there is a 100% probability that I will > > wake up .. > > Sorry, John Clark doesn't know the Mr. I referred to in the above, what Mr. > Clark said was "a version of you". > > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2E_%2BQXZp08HS2_RAqAtc3K9j1PvhNSMwMaGwEWq2y62w%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2E_%2BQXZp08HS2_RAqAtc3K9j1PvhNSMwMaGwEWq2y62w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0C2E1FCC-585D-48FA-B389-ABED240027BD%40ulb.ac.be.
