2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of that > kind from computationalism. > > Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most common > one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the field, but this > has nothing to do with comp. > > Then I allude sometimes about salvia divinorum, for which your remark > makes much more sense (but still not as a consequence of comp). It is > normal that altering consciousness products or methods can provide > information on consciousness. > > So inplicitly you are agreeing with what I told. You would never accept it however.
But don´t worry. That is not bad. It is simply human. To use the desired conclussion as an starting axiom is natural. I do not talk about your professional work or your conscious thinking, in which you are correct, but about the influence of you hipothesis in the spontaneous thinking about what is true in apparently unrelated questions where the conscious does not fire the "caution, it is only an hipothesis!" warning. Most of the thinking is unconscious. That´s why we wake-up with a solution for a problem after sleeping. That is an example of how the individual good (desired outcomes at least) establish what is true. > > > > >> (It is not a rethorical question. it is not an "accusation". I just ask) >> > > Marijuana makes things cool and a bit psychedelic. > To dissociate completely and "visit other realities" Salvia is more > efficacious. Also the experience last between 4 and 8 minutes, when > cannabis or wine inebriate you for about two to four hours. > > But the results are more easily sharable when doing math and logic. > > Normally. > > Bruno > > > > >> 2014/1/24, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>: >> >>> >>> On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >>> >>> 2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>: >>>> >>>>> Dear Alberto, >>>>> >>>>> I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking. >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or >>>>>> something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital >>>>>> computer. >>>>>> So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition. >>>>>> because >>>>>> it embrace everything. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations, >>>>> simulations, >>>>> representations and all other information related aspects of the >>>>> universe. >>>>> It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the >>>>> physical >>>>> world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation >>>>> can be a >>>>> morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces, >>>>> thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate >>>>> yet >>>>> related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members >>>>> of the >>>>> Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then, are >>>>> Identical. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using lego >>>>>> pieces? No, my dear legologist. >>>>>> >>>>>> What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces >>>>>> entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation is >>>>>> whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and >>>>>> thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is >>>>>> used >>>>>> ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to >>>>>> increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to >>>>> their >>>>> input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of >>>>> transformation >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that >>>> produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile. >>>> >>> >>> A cruise missile is not a computation. >>> Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation, >>> nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on all >>> computations). >>> >>> I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no >>> controversial notions. the notion of computation is based on the >>> mathematical discovery of the universal systems, languages and >>> (mathematical and digital) machines. Computation theory and >>> computability theory are standard branches of computer science. >>> >>> Well, to be sure, the notion of computation is more complex than the >>> notion of computability, but it is easy to get in all case precise >>> definitions which are coherent with what we know about universal >>> systems. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>>> But... as long as the are though or they are build or they are used, >>>> the goal is to create some kind of order by the mind that defines, >>>> uses or build it. >>>> >>>> These computations at last produce certain desired order. Either are >>>> made for you to convince me about how meaningles is my definition or >>>> to kill terrorists in an enemy country etc. Ultimately the desired >>>> outcome is reduction of uncertainty and entropy around the designer. >>>> >>>> . It is a metaphisical position if you like. If you like, I can call >>>> "essence of computation" instead of "computation" as such. or >>>> alternatively "the self sustained process for which the computation is >>>> _ever_ made for" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> of information, including transformations that are automorphisms. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A simulation is an special case of the latter. >>>>>> >>>>>> So there are things that are computations: what the living beings do >>>>>> at the chemical, physiological or nervous levels (and rational, >>>>>> social >>>>>> and technological level in case of humans) . But there are things >>>>>> that >>>>>> are not computations: almost everything else. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> We are using a very narrow definition of computations and thus miss >>>>> the >>>>> computations that physical processes outside of our CPUs and GPUs are >>>>> performing. If the functions of an Isolated physical system are >>>>> such that >>>>> the transformations they induce in/on their cover space (?) of >>>>> representations are a simulation of the physical system, what >>>>> obtains? A >>>>> one to one map of the system that co-evolves with it. When we >>>>> consider >>>>> physical systems interacting with each other, could they >>>>> additionally have >>>>> partial emulations of each other within their "self-simulations"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Alberto. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups >>>>> "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>> send an >>>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything- >>>>> l...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alberto. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
