Bruno, and List:

I think Marty's question brought us to the point when everybody's pesonal
belief (worldview? mindset?) comes into consideration. Some base the
totality upon the (consciousness(?) provided) Platonsim, numbers, even
physical world - view, others upon mysticism, religion, diverse phylosophies
(ontologies) and a vast variety of mixtures among all these and others.
To base anything 'upon' consciousness has the prerequisite of such,
preceeding (even if reversely denied) the theory in favor FOR the generation
of such. We (asumed that we are) are 'thinking' out our theories HOW to
think out anything.
"*If there was never a physical world..."*  can be asked in a negative
connotation only by an extreme solipsist
"...*comp and numbers alone created such a universe and then created people
to experience it...."*
rather: generated in their experience the idea of 'comp and numbers'? (which
is universe-related) AFTER they were created by what they created.
"...*how did [such] purposefulness and intentionality get into pure comp?
*did it indeed? isn't comp as anything reasonable, deterministic in the
sense that relations provide relations? that no relations occur if only
unrelated (random?) elements come into play? (Isn't THAT also a human
idea by the darn consciousness?)

I planed to illustrate "my" basis and presently developed best own belief
system, but it is not of general interest and I don't want to persuade
(convert? seduce?) anybody to similar position.


John Mikes

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, m.a. <> wrote:

>  *Bruno,*
> *             If there was never a physical world to which living
> creatures adapted after millions of years  and which after further
> eons prompted the evolution of consciousness, do we conclude that comp and
> numbers alone created such a universe and then created people to experience
> it...all through the chance combinations of numbers? Are we saying that
> monkeys on typewriters authored everything we see about us?  If so, how did
> such purposefulness and intentionality get into pure comp?   *
> *
> marty a.*
>   **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Harmon" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Consciousness is information?
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal <>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Since you told me that you accept comp, after all, and do no more
> >> oppose it to your view, I think we agree, at least on many things.
> >> Indeed you agree with the hypothesis, and your philosophy appears to
> >> be a consequence of the hypothesis.
> >
> > Excellent!
> >
> >
> >> It remains possible that we have a disagreement concerning the
> >> probability, and this has some importance, because it is the use of
> >> probability (or credibility) which makes the consequences of comp
> >> testable. More in the comment below.
> >
> > So my only problem with the usual view of probability is that it
> > doesn't seem to me to emerge naturally from a platonic theory of
> > conscious.  Is your proposal something that would conceivably be
> > arrived at by a rational observer in one of the (supposedly) rare
> > worlds where white rabbits are common?   Does it have features that
> > would lead one to predict the absence of white rabbits, or does it
> > just offer a way to explain their absence after the fact?
> >
> > As I mentioned before, assuming computationalism it seems to me that
> > it is theoretically possible to create a computer simulation that
> > would manifest any imaginable conscious entity observing any
> > imaginable "world", including schizophrenic beings observing
> > psychedelic realities.  So, then further assuming Platonism, all of
> > these strange experiences should exist in Platonia.  Along with all
> > possible normal experiences.
> >
> > I don't see any obvious, non-"ad hoc" mechanism to eliminate or
> > minimize strange experiences relative to normal experiences, and I
> > don't think adding one is justified just for that purpose, or even
> > necessary since an unconstrained platonic theory does have the obvious
> > virtue of saying that there will always be Kellys like myself who have
> > never seen white rabbits.
> >
> > As for your earlier questions about how you should bet, I have two
> responses.
> >
> > First that there exists a Bruno who will make every possible bet.
> > One particular Bruno will make his bet on a whim, while another Bruno
> > will do so only after long consideration, and yet another will make a
> > wild bet in a fit of madness.  Each Bruno will "feel" like he made a
> > choice, but actually all possible Brunos exist, so all possible bets
> > are made, for all possible subjectively "felt" reasons.
> >
> > Second, and probably more helpfully, I'll quote this paper
> > ( by
> > David Papineau, which sounds reasonable to me:
> >
> > "But many minds theorists can respond that the logic of statistical
> > inference is just the same on their view as on the conventional view.
> > True, on their view in any repeated trial all the different possible
> > sequences of results can be observed, and so some attempts to infer
> > the probability from the observed frequency will get it wrong.  Still,
> > any particular mind observing any one of these sequences will reason
> > just as the conventional view would recommend:  note the frequency,
> > infer that the probability is close to the frequency, and hope that
> > you are not the unlucky victim of an improbable sample.  Of course the
> > logic of this kind of statistical inference is itself a matter of
> > active philosophical controversy.  But it will be just the same
> > inference on both the many minds and the conventional view.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > It is worth observing that, on the conventional view, what agents want
> > from their choices are the desired results, rather than that these
> > results be objectively probable (a choice that makes the results
> > objectively probable, but unluckily doesn't produce them, doesn't give
> > you what you want).  Given this, there is room to raise the question:
> > why are rational agents well-advised to choose actions that make their
> > desired results objectively probable?  Rather surprisingly, is no good
> > answer to this question.  (After all, you can't assume you will get
> > what you want if you so choose.)  From Pierce on, philosophers have
> > been forced to conclude that it is simply a primitive fact about
> > rational choice that you ought to weight future possibilities
> > according to known objective probabilities in making decisions.
> >
> > The many minds view simply says the same thing.  Rational agents ought
> > to choose those actions which will maximize the known objective
> > probability of desired results.  As to why they ought to do this,
> > there is no further explanation.  This is simply a basic truth about
> > rational choice.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I supect that this basic truth actually makes more sense on the many
> > minds view than on the conventional view.  For on the conventional
> > view there is a puzzle about the relation between this truth and the
> > further thought that ultimate success in action depends on desired
> > results actually occurring.  On the many minds view, by contrast,
> > there is no such further thought, since all possible results occur,
> > desired and undesired, and so no puzzle:  in effect there is only one
> > criterion of success in action, namely, maximizing the known objective
> > probability of desired results.  However, this is really the subject
> > for another paper, not least because the idea that agents ought to
> > maximize the known objective probability of desired results itself
> > hides a number of complexities which I have been skating over here."
> >
> >
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to