On 08 May 2009, at 17:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:

>     I came upon the idea after considering how is it that the notion  
> of an "objective reality" when we know for a fact that all of our  
> knowledge does not come from any kind of direct contact with an  
> "objective reality", at best it is infered.

Yes. Even at the deepest level. Science transforms knowledge into  
belief by making us aware of the hypothetical nature of our mental  
construction.
I would say that science is the condition of genuine faith or bets.




> Leibniz' Monadology can be considered as a way to think of this idea  
> where each monad represents a 1-PoV.

Difficult to make sense. Leibniz is a complex and variable author. I  
have read the Monadology and consult some expert of Leibniz, but it  
remains hard to figure out how it works.




> A synchronization of many such 1PoV, given some simple consistensy  
> requirements, would in the large number limit lead to a notion of a  
> "common world of experience".

Don't you need some "common world of experience" to have a notion of  
synchronization?



>     The 3PoV would follow from a form of inversion or reflection of  
> a 1PoV. For example, we form thoughts of or fellow humans from our  
> own experiences of ourselves. BTW: it seems to me that  
> consciousness, at least, requires some form of dynamic self-  
> modeling process. This implies that there is no such a thing as a  
> static consciousness.


I can agree. And you know the way I proceed. I start from elementary  
arithmetic, the 3-elementary ontology. If only because 99,9% of the  
humans agree on it, and it is already Turing universal and contains  
the whole universal deployment. The epistemology is given by adding  
some induction schema to the machine in there. It is illustrated by  
the going from Robinson arithmetic to Peano Arithmetic (emulated by  
Robinson arithmetic). It is enough to generate all "finite piece of  
histories", and we can get the many 1-pov by the "Theaetetical variant  
of the logic of provability/consistency ...

So, if you agree that all dynamics are contained in the block- 
arithmetical truth, consciousness is indeed related to "internal  
information flux", and so we can say there is no static consciousness,  
in that sense. But here we mix the 3-description with the 1- 
description, and from this we cannot conclude that we cannot have a  
conscious experience of static-ity or static-ness. With comp, just  
because it remains a lot of work, the question of traveling in many  
different physical directions is just open (obviously).


>     Re the UD Measure problem: The idea i have is that we either  
> have our infinity within each Monad or try to find a way to derive a  
> measure of the infinity without reference to the only source of  
> definiteness that we have available: our conscious experience.


If I interpret favorably what you say, this is the passage from UDA to  
AUDA, where I substitute "you working on UDA", by "the lobian  
universal machine working on UDA".

I don't insist on this because it can be misunderstood. AUDA looks  
like an elimination of the need to refer to "consciousness", but AUDA  
without a prior understanding of UDA, would be like a confusion  
between theology and computer science, comp can only relate them, not  
identify them it would be an error, explainable in AUDA (!!!!!), to  
confuse them. Only God confuses them; in  sense, but a creature which  
confuses them is either a zombie, or a fake zombie, or a person  
eliminativist.

You can regain consciousness in AUDA, by "defining" consciousness by  
the "belief (hope, bet, faith) in a reality".  But the bet is  
unconscious itself, and this is partially why we are bounded, at some  
level, to confuse this very basic belief with a knowledge.

Of course it is a knowledge, but only at the G* level, *we* cannot  
know that, once we bet there is a reality (whatever it is).

All this does not mean that you could not try an alternate theory were  
the 3-pov emerge from the 1-pov, but with comp, the basic ontology is  
very simple (numbers, addition and multiplication). And then 1-pov, or  
OMs, appears very sophisticated. They are given "intuitively" by all  
possible computations passing to a "current state", together with a  
topology derivable from the self-reference logic (I think you know  
that).

Bruno


> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Consciousness is information?
>
>
> On 05 May 2009, at 20:13, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruno and Members,
>>
>>     The comment that is made below seems to only involve a single  
>> consciousness and an exterior "reality". Could we not recover a  
>> very similar situation if we consider the 1-PoV and 3-PoV relation  
>> to hold to some degree over a multitude of consciouness  
>> (plurality). In the plurality case, the "objective doubtful but  
>> sharable possible reality" would be composed of a large  
>> intersection of sorts of 3-PoV aspects that can be recognized by or  
>> mapped to a statistical or generic notion of a 1-PoV. No?
>
>
> Yes. May be. Why? You need something like that for the first person  
> plural, but you have to extract it in some precise way for solving  
> the UD measure problem. You could elaborate perhaps.
>

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to