On 11/12/2008, at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >> On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain >>> why >>> I think that: IF we assume that we are machine, >> >> >> Never understood what people meant by "a machine". > > Actually I was thinking "digital machine" or digitalizable machine. > Like "Mechanism" will always mean digital mechanism. > I will explain this later. > To define the notion of machine in general is not easy. With the usual > physical theories most things are machine and are even digital or > analog but still digitalizable machine. > I prefer not working with precise definitions, and instead illustrate > the concept through the reasoning. Yes, entendu - with the condition, perhaps, that wherever possible, we reify somehow I want to bring this whole thing down to 'street level' a bit more I can quickly grasp something if it is presented to me as an experience; qualia play a role early on - I have to be able to 'sense' it On the other hand: I understand intellectually many things that I have never experienced - these things leave me cold. Your reasoning does not - so it already seems less than abstract to me which is good. So: I am usually happiest if the output of the reasoning is an experience or its description - not an abstraction Mechanism is already a good reification - not just an object but a process > > > The main idea is that a machine or a mechanism is something that is a > finite combination of a finite number of elementary parts (or locally > finite, since it could grow). In all circumstances, it's behaviour > can be > explained or reduced to the predictible local behavior of the > elementary parts. When the elementary parts are many, this leads to > differential equations. > When not so many, it gives rise to difference equations or recursive > processes. = fractalism (point of view)? This may mean the simplest machines that exist are probably fractal in nature, already self-referential. That already evokes consciousness, doesn't it? Fractals are extremely self- referential highly arresting patterns. Consciousness may only require recursion to emerge (assuming MAT) It seems to me that 'consciousness' is deeply embedded in the very idea of what a machine is - not Descartian dualism for me - just the result of recursive patterning reaching a critical simplicity > > The very idea of "explanation" often implicitly or explicitly relies > on mechanism, or on "a" mechanism. An explanation is then, something with logical connections that is itself in some ways machine? Does not an explanation usually also *specify* a description of the thing explained? A description is always the result of a certain perspective. Is the perspective of the description able to be formalised? > > > >> I've always thought >> I was a machine. > > This is not obvious. Except to he who believes it or feels it to be right > Is the system Earth-Moon really a machine? > Already with the rough definition given above, we could doubt it, if > only because the Moon-Earth system is usually described by"infinite" > real variable functions. The real functions operate on the real > numbers, the "points" of the line, which are infinite "objects". With > quantum mechanics the apparent real things get digital, but if you > keep the collapse of the wave, it is hard to even describe you as > either a physical thing still less a machine. Well, yes. This is what is usually referred to as "splitting" (wave collapse) which always sounded to me like magic Decoherence kind of explains it > With the many world, the > "usual" mechanist explanation of the observer is preserved, except for > the classical mechanics behind. (Albeit only logicians, to be sure, > have provided, computable or mechanist function on the reals with non > computable derivatives). Mr Spock pointy ears are growing on you right now - wear them with pride > > > And what about the "believers"? Jacques Arsac, a french computer > scientist wrote a book beginning by "I am a Catholic so I cannot > believe in Artificial Intelligence, and its point is that we are not > machine. Is this a case where the Catholics are maybe right on something? I'm also happy to 'not be a machine' if Professor Father Arsac has God's authority over it > Renault, the car firm, made an advertising based on the idea > that "you are not a machine Did they sell more or less cars as a result of this? > > But the real trouble with the "mechanist idea" is its apparent > elimination of the subject, it explains consciousness "away". So I'm happy with that too already. We aren't here. The universe is a joke > Not only does > mechanism not solve the mind body problem, but when mechanism and > materialism are combined, as is usually still done, you get > nihilism. This is really my point. I was just anticipating. You mean that there is no future in nihilism? Can't we find a role for meaninglessness in all of this? Would we be be able to recognise meaninglessness somehow? I felt pretty meaningless after I received a redundancy from my last employer, but it was only a feeling Sorry for the (perhaps pointless for some) digressions but reality truly is fractal - I have to keep zooming in. Will return soon to the Plan regards, K --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
