* [1]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.
[2]4 mins * [3]Like
* [4][IMG]
[5]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.
[6]2 mins * [7]Like
* [8][IMG]
[9]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.
References
Visible links
1.
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.udut?fref=ufi
2.
https://www.facebook.com/gary.wayne.94695/posts/1545878932355784?comment_id=1546088135668197&offset=0&total_comments=1
3. Like this comment
https://www.facebook.com/#
4.
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.udut?fref=ufi
5.
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.udut?fref=ufi
6.
https://www.facebook.com/gary.wayne.94695/posts/1545878932355784?comment_id=1546088329001511&offset=0&total_comments=2
7. Like this comment
https://www.facebook.com/#
8.
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.udut?fref=ufi
9.
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.udut?fref=ufi
