The Nature of Purpose

[JerryL]

There are many parts of the brain that process information and "understand things" but are not conscious.

http://www.tutrin.com/

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Oh, he wants to go fishing alright; he just has more confidence in a fishing rod than in groping about in the water with your eyes closed.

Ha, ha, frubles to you!

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Logic is a description of the function of reality.

Webster's definition of "law": 6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

I bring it up because I think it's appropriate. Math and logic are, in essence, groups of laws. A=A is certainly a law... a description.

Excellent, I think I agree with this.

It seems, from what you've psoted, to say that no single law will be comprehensive. I don't see the relevence of this.

Not quite... the theorem refers to the entire set of axioms. It is not possible to have a formal system of a certain expressive strength that is both consistent and complete.

My interpretation of this is that if we ever get a complete set of laws for physics, then we must assume that there are still truths outside of that system do exist (but perhaps are not mathematical in nature).

What's "external". Does a computer have free-will because it's decisions are base don electronics and programming internal to itself?

No, the decisions are based on the construction and programming of the computer, which we all external. The functionality can be entirely reduced to laws of physics, which are something different than a "computer".

So now you offer the sustainablity of a perception as proof it's valid in its conclusion? I'd like to see your support for that.

No, thats not what I am saying. I am asking for the relevance of your link. I just don't see how a device could make our sense of freewill come and go because it is not a volatile sense.

The real question is "can a computer ever be?". I suspect the answer is "yes".

But a computer is just a tool of efficiency. Anything a computer can do can be done with a pen and paper (it just might take a really long time).

But suppose we think we have an algorithm that is conscious. How would we verify this? If the consciousness can be completely explained with physical processes, then certainly we could verify the computer is conscious through observation.

 

[JerryL]

My interpretation of this is that if we ever get a complete set of laws for physics, then we must assume that there are still truths outside of that system do exist (but perhaps are not mathematical in nature).

But this seems to simply be an assertion.

No, the decisions are based on the construction and programming of the computer, which we all external. The functionality can be entirely reduced to laws of physics, which are something different than a "computer".

I see no reason that the neural network in our head is any different. Our functions can be entirely reduced to the laws of physics as well.

No, thats not what I am saying. I am asking for the relevance of your link. I just don't see how a device could make our sense of freewill come and go because it is not a volatile sense.

And I'm responding that I don't see the connection between volitility and the topic.

But a computer is just a tool of efficiency. Anything a computer can do can be done with a pen and paper (it just might take a really long time).

Same with a brain.

But suppose we think we have an algorithm that is conscious. How would we verify this? If the consciousness can be completely explained with physical processes, then certainly we could verify the computer is conscious through observation.

Same way that I veryify that you are actually consious... oh wait, I can't.

The best you can do is look for untrained reactions which indicate a self-awareness. Usually the apparent recognition that the face in the mirror is their own.