BM: '
OK, except I don't see what you mean by on a "number" basis. We know that number have a lot of quantitative interesting relationships, but after Godel, Solovay etc.. we do know that numbers have astonishing qualitative relationship to (like the hypostases to mention it). '

MP: No no no, sorry, this is just me being colloquial. Nothing deep or important was intended! :-) I was responding to a *possible implication* in Stathis's statement about religious fanatics. I thought it was worth emphasising that, along with the deluded majority who think they are 'doing what is right', there are also those whose motivation is strictly instrumental and manipulative and who find willing collaborators amongst the naive fanatics. This situation is not confined to 'religious' organisations of course but to any sub-culture in which the description of the world has fallen into a closed loop.

BM: 'Except that Dawking and Dennet fall in their own trap, and perpetuates the myth of a "physical universe" as an explanation. They continue to bury the mind/body problem under the rug.'

MP: Well I think that we will rapidly reach our 'agree to differ' line with this one. I think physical just means both extended and able to be measured. As such it is fairly close to self-evidently true, in my book. OK, so that is an 'anthropic' outlook but I exist and seem to be some sort of anthropos or whatever [sorry I never studied Greek and only ever achieved 35% in my one year of formal Latin studies :-]. It seems to me that physical is as physical does; as I wrote responding to Stathis, number is theory is just that - theory. It is incredibly useful in all manner of practical applications as well as effective in keeping lots of people off the streets doing amazing logical/arithmetical things for interest and entertainment's sake. I watch with awe and admiration, but I remain careful to acknowledge that a description is a description not the thing it is describing. Existence per se is ultimately mysterious and our experience of being here now is essentially paradoxical: the experience is what it is like to be the updating of a model of self in the world [always 'my' model] but we conflate the experience with actually BEING here now, when the experience is much more limited than that. It would be much truer to say, I think, that this consciousness I take so much for granted is ABOUT my being here now. As much as anything I like to characterise it as: the registration of difference between what my brain predicted for perceiving and doing as opposed to what actually happened.



Regards
Mark Peaty  CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/



Bruno Marchal wrote:


Le 02-janv.-07, à 08:14, Mark Peaty a écrit :

    SP: ' In the end, what is "right" is an irreducible personal
    belief, which you can try to change by appeal to emotions or by
    example, but not by appeal to logic or empirical facts. And in
    fact I feel much safer that way: if someone honestly believed that
    he knew what was "right" as surely as he knew 2+2=4, he would be a
    very dangerous person. Religious fanatics are not dangerous
    because they want to do evil, but because they want to do good. '



Just to be clear, I do agree with Stathis here. Completely. I have already argue this is even a provable consequence of comp (or the arithmetical comp).



    MP: I agree with this, saving only that, on a 'numbers' basis,
    there are those whose personal evolution takes them beyond the
    dynamic of 'good' or 'evil' into the domain of power for its own
    sake. This entails complete loss of empathic ability and I think
    it could be argued that such a person is 'legislating' himself out
    of the human species.



OK, except I don't see what you mean by on a "number" basis. We know that number have a lot of quantitative interesting relationships, but after Godel, Solovay etc. we do know that numbers have astonishing qualitative relationship to (like the hypostases to mention it).





    MP: I think a key point with 'irreducible personal belief' is that
    the persons in question need to acknowledge the beliefs as such
    and take responsibility for them. I believe we have to point this
    out, whenever we get the opportunity, because generally most
    people are reluctant to engage in analysis of their own beliefs,
    in public anyway. I think part of the reason for this is the
    cultural climate [meme-scape?] in which Belief in a G/god/s or
    uncritical Faith are still held to be perfectly respectable. This
    cultural climate is what Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet have
    been criticising in recent books and articles.



Except that Dawking and Dennet fall in their own trap, and perpetuates the myth of a "physical universe" as an explanation. They continue to burry the mind/body problem under the rug.



    SP: 'I am not entirely convinced that comp is true'

    MP: At the moment I am satisfied that 'comp' is NOT true,
    certainly in any format that asserts that 'integers' are all that
    is needed. 'Quantum' is one thing, but 'digital' is quite another :-)


OK, but comp is *digital* mechanism. Then it is a theorem that a digital machine cannot distinguish a "physically real computational history" with a purely mathematical or even arithmetical computational history. You can "add" Matter in the immaterial brain: it will change nothing unless you give a non turing emulable role to that Matter. Why not add magic directly? Then the quantum has to be justified from the digital (that is not trivial, see my url for more, or ask questions).



    The main problem [fact I would prefer to say] is that existence is
    irreducible whereas numbers or Number be dependent upon
something/s existing.
    MP: Why are we not zombies? The answer is in the fact of
    self-referencing.



Right!



    In our case [as hominids] there are peculiarities of construction
    and function arisen from our evolutionary history, ...



Sure,



    ... but there is nothing in principle to deny self-awareness from
    a silicon-electronic entity that embodied sufficient details
    within a model of self in the world.



This is *comp* (unless you think about putative non turing emulable silicon electronic).




    The existence of such a model would constitute its mind, broadly
    speaking, and the updating of the model of self in the world would
    be the experience of self awareness. What it would be like TO BE
    the updating of such a model of self in the world is something we
    will probably have to wait awhile to be told  :-)




How could we ever know? Of course, *assuming* the comp hyp, we already know: it is like being us here and now.



Bruno


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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to