• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

Robin said:
But drkitten suggested that any system that processes information the way the MoIP says it should.

But if way the MoIP says it should means any behaviour of which the system is capable then his point is only trivially true.
Click to expand...

Not when the "MoIP" limits the capabilities of the system.
 
PixyMisa said:
The million dollars is for proof of a supernatural ability. This qualifies just fine on the proof part, but fails completely on the supernatural part.
Click to expand...
Does PEAR qualify? Rupert Sheldrake's claims? Homeopathic cures?
That's just how the Universe works, Robin.
Click to expand...
That is your claim.
If you isolate the computations, it doesn't matter how fast or how slowly you do them, you still get the same answer.
Click to expand...
That is the trivial part of the claim, all that means is that the natural number output by the last step if it halts is always the same.

And all that means is that the last deck checker filling in the last box will write down the same number as was in the last updated register or memory location of the super computer and that all the numbers in between will be the same.

It does not imply that every single property of the system being modelled will be reproduced.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
And another thing with this level business.

If I have Blue Brain running a simulation of a Sparc system running a simulation of a PA-RISC running a simulation of an Intel, running a simulation of a power-pc running a simulation of a DragonBall running a simulation of a Z80.

I duly run Pong on the Z80, then which processor is running Pong?
Click to expand...


The Blue Brain is the only physical processor here. yes?

The simulations in the example you have used are all software yes.?

All the simulations run on the physical processor (hardware). Thats the only real processor there is, yes?

Thats the one for me.

how about you?
 
drkitten said:
Yes. That's because the mathematics of information processing define the limits of how (information processing) objects are capable of behaving.
Click to expand...
So we are back to having limits
That's like saying "any physical object obeys the laws of physics." Yes, that is equivalent to saying "the way any physical object behaves is how the laws of physics say that it should." If you could find an object that did not follow the laws of physics, that would be pretty revolutionary.
Click to expand...
But that would only be a valid point if everything is a algorithm.

If that is now your point then the claim that the mind is an algorithm is pointless.

I did. You asked me to unpack it, so I did.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Everything is an algorithm.

Why didn't you say so in the first place?
 
biomorph said:
The Blue Brain is the only physical processor here. yes?

The simulations in the example you have used are all software yes.?

All the simulations run on the physical processor (hardware). Thats the only real processor there is, yes?

Thats the one for me.

how about you?
Click to expand...
Me too.
 
drkitten said:
Certainly anything that can process information involves an algorithm. And since everything is an algorithm, and there are things that algorithms can't do, there are things that can't be done.
Click to expand...
Although it is not quite clear to me:

anything that can process information involves an algorithm​

and

everything is an algorithm​

The second claim seems to make the first superfluous.
 
Robin said:
Does PEAR qualify? Rupert Sheldrake's claims? Homeopathic cures?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, and yes. Of course, none of them are true, so they fail in the proof section of the requirements.

That is your claim.
Click to expand...
Yes. In what way is it supernatural?

That is the trivial part of the claim, all that means is that the natural number output by the last step if it halts is always the same.
Click to expand...
Correct.

And all that means is that the last deck checker filling in the last box will write down the same number as was in the last updated register or memory location of the super computer and that all the numbers in between will be the same.
Click to expand...
Correct.

It does not imply that every single property of the system being modelled will be reproduced.
Click to expand...
Well, that depends entirely on what calculations you were doing, doesn't it?
 
Robin said:
Rocketdodger says that it doesn't. How does the MoIP limit the capabilities of a system?
Click to expand...

Well, the mathematics of information processing says that no algorithm can infallibly determine whether or not a given computer program is capable of generating output. Since "everything is an algorithm," this means that this particular problem is literally unsolvable, by any system.

And this isn't just abstract theorizing without practical import. The same mathematics say that a perfect antivirus scanner is impossible, a fact of which both Norton and the FBI are well aware.
 
PixyMisa said:
Where?

Edit: Sorry, I see the post you're referring to. I suggest you read it again, more carefully.
Click to expand...
Here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5374161#post5374161

drkitten said:
robin said:
And it says that everything is an algorithm.
Click to expand...
At least you got that one more or less right. Certainly anything that can process information involves an algorithm. And since everything is an algorithm, and there are things that algorithms can't do, there are things that can't be done.

That's hardly "trivial."
In which case why not go ahead and say that everything is an algorithm and save time?
Click to expand...
I did. You asked me to unpack it, so I did
Click to expand...
Did you want to draw my attention to something in particular?

The claim is made twice although the wording is, as I pointed out, a little unclear.

Can you clarify drkitten? Is everything an algorithm or is it not?
 
biomorph said:
The Blue Brain is the only physical processor here. yes?
Click to expand...
You have a screen and a keyboard and CP/M. You've never heard of "Blue Brain". What CPU are you running on?

The simulations in the example you have used are all software yes.?

All the simulations run on the physical processor (hardware). Thats the only real processor there is, yes?

Thats the one for me.

how about you?
Click to expand...
No. One of the most important properties of system virtualisation is that programs running under the virtual system have no way of telling that the system is virtual. To the programmer and to the program, you're on a Z80.
 
drkitten said:
Well, the mathematics of information processing says that no algorithm can infallibly determine whether or not a given computer program is capable of generating output. Since "everything is an algorithm," this means that this particular problem is literally unsolvable, by any system.

And this isn't just abstract theorizing without practical import. The same mathematics say that a perfect antivirus scanner is impossible, a fact of which both Norton and the FBI are well aware.
Click to expand...
But PixyMisa says that I have not read your post properly if I think you are claiming that everything is an algorithm.

Can you clarify?
 
PixyMisa said:
Yes, yes, and yes. Of course, none of them are true, so they fail in the proof section of the requirements.
Click to expand...
They certainly do. But do they, themselves say that their claims are supernatural?
 
Robin said:
But PixyMisa says that I have not read your post properly if I think you are claiming that everything is an algorithm.

Can you clarify?
Click to expand...

Well, anything that processes information does so via an algorithm.
Anything that makes decisions (or categorizes things) processes information.
And anything that can decide whether or not a computer program can generate output makes decisions.

So anything that is even presumptively capable of solving that particular problem is an algorithm (and therefore can't solve that problem, by the mathematical finding above).

Now, if you want to claim that a brick that is just sitting there is not an algorithm, I'm cool with that. But a brick is also not capable of making decisions. If you can find a way in which a brick makes decisions, it will do so in an algorithmic way.

You could also claim that a computer that is just sitting there (powered down)_ is not an algorithm -- which is fair, since most algorithms are software. But, again, an unpowered computer is not making decisions, any more than a brick is.

But the human mind is something that makes decisions. And it's therefore algorithmic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom