Genady

They are all illusions. Found a quote I had in mind when I said this:

And, being a process, is emergent rather than intrinsic. I think it is a process of an intrinsic faculty at work. There is a brain structure whose function is perceived by us as consciousness. I also think that this faculty evolved as a means of learning.

Without the math, the simple resolution of the 'contradiction' in the OP is that the momentary acceleration of the falling body does not depend on the falling body's mass, but as the other body moves toward it, the total distance of the fall depends on the falling body's mass as well.

I remember that 't Hooft related to this experiment as an illustration in one of his writings. According to him, the noise is precisely correlated being precisely determined since the time the sources of the noise were affecting each other near the beginning of the Big Bang.

deleted - the previous responses are better

Now I imagine billions of programs. Not for calculating pi, but for acting in billions of situations in my physical and social environment, each one unpredictable until it actually happens. I get an adult human.

That shows that "I am determining the design. The resulting behavior can be unpredictable." I don't think the word "volition" has been in the discussion so far. Other words, yes, but not this one.

Look at that formula. It has an infinite sum. It is not kind of formula that you can plug in N and get the N-th digit back. To get the N-th digit you have to run that sum calculation long enough and only then see the answer. You cannot predict the answer any other way.

Take a simple program that calculates the number pi. It is impossible to predict what it will produce for the N-th digit without actually running it until it produces that digit.

No, I am determining the design. The resulting behavior can be unpredictable. The only way to determine the behavior in such designs is to run the machine or to imitate its running, and to watch what happens.

That just means that what you call "programming" is the same that I call "design." Intentionality means reference and reference means intentionality. Sounds circular to me. Anyway, my thoughts refer to concepts in my mind.

It does not have to be programmed. It can be all "hardware". That's what I said, "we can design and build a machine" that behaves this way. This is a circular argument. Can you break it down?

If we want, we can design and build a machine that once started will go on by itself until its natural death. They are all illusions. +1

They are designed to be controlled. It is so on purpose.

Wait a minute. The whole wide field of "artificial devices" turns to be a narrow field of digital computers? Does the title of the thread actually mean, "Conscious computer is impossible"?

Do you mean, your article? By the rules of the forum, all discussions have to be conducted with no need to go outside. As a former programmer, I don't know what it is. Is it a riddle?

Do you mean that assuming a conscious machine leads to a contradiction?

Yes, I understand. The criteria is, that there is no law that forbids an artificial device to be conscious. Thus, there is no law that makes a conscious artificial device an impossibility.

Allowing it to be conscious does not mean that it is conscious. It means that a conscious artificial device is not impossible.

I never asked about criteria for consciousness. I asked about consciousness of an artificial device being allowed or forbidden by any law of nature. Of course, my answer is that it is not forbidden. And that was what I said in my very first post in this thread.

Oh, I did not realize that you want MY answer to this question. The question is not moot, and my answer is clear: there is no known law of nature that forbids toilet seat to be conscious.

If there is a law that forbids a toilet seat to be conscious, it will not answer my question because it will leave open a possibility that some other artificial device might be conscious.

This is not enough. Putting more formally, a law of nature that forbids existence of any conscious artificial device?

... an artificial device ...

So, what did you find out for answer to my question, Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificial device to have consciousness?