its not that consciousness won’t be mathematically modelable.. just not the way they do it now.


  • t Interesting – I suspect they will get a lot of backlash or criticism. I don’t know enough about the details to say either way about the validity of his proof or not… but in principle, I agree, just for a different set of reasons.

    There’s potential with embodied cognition (outside-in) methods, but with inside-out methods (like computational theory of mind), mathematics just can’t handle it yet. Needs more wiggle room and less direct control for consciousness to be possible.
  • Kenneth Udut A series of proper constraints might do it; and that may be mathematically modeled. but the system would have to run, imo, without interference by measurement, for the act of measuring would disturb particulars in the system.
  • Kenneth Udut For example, the act of measuring would be an input into the system. But it can’t be zeroed out simply, because of the complexity of the system. Rue Goldberg and all. I dunno. I could be entirely wrong but its similar to the problem in quantum mechanics, to me. They’re bypassing some of the quantum mechanics stuff by repeating gently many many many times for measuring purposes and that seems to be working. That’s what I mean by wiggle room.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six × = 42

Leave a Reply