2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>
> On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Hi Roger:
>
> ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary
> psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true.
>
>
> Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology
> still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular
> mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be
> shown contradictory(*).
>
>
>
>
> The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is
> crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions
> and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the
> laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also
> dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the
> planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane).
>
>
> OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at
> least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the
> neoplatonists already did.
>
>
>
> I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate
> nature or reality
>
>
> Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp
> frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough.
> Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe
> completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of
> what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano
> Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like "new person", and it put only
> more mess in Platonia.
>
>
>
>
> Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind
> along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in
> category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as
> Stephen told me and he can explain you) .
>
>
> Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and
> matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more
> that matter is an iceberg tip of "reality".
>
> Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if "matter"? do
we can know about it this submerged computational nature? which phenomena
produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?.
Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this
is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What
the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be
you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not
realize it)
By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing
a computational theory of ultimate reality. I try to demolish it from
above, by proposing that perceptions are the effect of computation in
living beings for survival . I assume, and I make use of it, that the comp
hypothesis can also be applied at a level above phisical reality instead of
below: a substitution at the axon firing level could be used to substitute
a part of the brain by computer chips (by making the chips to inject axonic
signals) + perhaps some hormonal control. This substitution level
Matrix-style can produce the same first person indeterminacy and still the
computation is made within this reality, by real computers made of ordinary
matter.
This is enough for a discussion.
> Eventually matter emerge from dreams coherence conditions. Dreams are just
> the first person view on the relevant computations which exists by
> elementary arithmetic.
>
>
>
>
> For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in time
> since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy, the mind
> would make use of another mathematical structure with a relation of order.
>
>
> I agree, and N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... } is quite enough, at least with
> the addition and multiplication laws. You can define the order by the order
> relation x < y, that you can define for example by Ez(x + z = y & ~(z =
> 0)). That order is enough to define the order of the computational steps in
> any computations.
>
> With computationalism, physics is *literally* entirely reducible to
> computer science (= number theory or combinator theory), in a sense similar
> to the fact that current biology is literally reducible to chemistry,
> itself reducible to physics. Note that computer science refers to number
> crunching and syntactical manipulations, but also to the many semantics of
> programs and computations, like Scott denotational semantics, or like those
> derived from mathematical logic (self-reference theory, model theory,
> Curry-Howard isomorphism, etc.).
>
> Here, the use of self-reference makes it possible to explain the *whole*
> of physics: that is the quanta *and* the qualia together, and why they
> seems (and are) different. All universal numbers, when looking inward, find
> that same universal qualia-quanta distinctions. Note this makes comp
> testable, as you can compare the quanta behavior found by machine
> introspection with what we can observe, and in that sense, we can say that
> QM-without-collapse is quite an ally, up to now, to the comp postulate.
> Newton physics, once assessed, would have violate the comp theory.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> (*)
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
>
> 2012/10/6 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm
>>
>>
>> Kant's "Copernican Revolution"
>>
>> " Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican
>> Revolution,"
>> that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object
>> possible
>> rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This
>> introduced
>> the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a
>> passive
>> recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious: the mind
>> could
>> be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full of
>> silicon chips
>> could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e.
>> recognized,
>> or it would just be noise -- "less even than a dream" or "nothing to us,"
>> as Kant
>> alternatively puts it. "
>> .
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 10/6/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> From: Craig Weinberg
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-10-05, 10:42:30
>> Subject: Re: A "grand hypothesis" about order, life, and consciousness
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>>
>>
>> So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order
>> out of chaos" *. Since at least higher living beings
>> also possess consciousness, my "grand" hypothesis is that
>>
>> life = consciousness = awareness = producing order out of chaos.
>>
>>
>> I agree Roger. I would add to this understanding however, a logarithmic
>> sense of increasing quality of experience.
>>
>> human experience = consciousness > animal experience = awareness >
>> microbiotic experience = sensation > inorganic experience = persistence of
>> functions and structures.
>>
>> I would not say producing order out of chaos because I think that chaos
>> is not primordial. Nonsense is a mismatch or attenuation of sense, not the
>> other way around. Order cannot be produced from chaos unless chaos
>> implicitly contains the potential for order...which makes the production of
>> orderly appearance really just a formality.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y5Z0qwWOARAJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
