On 21 Aug 2009, at 17:39, David Nyman wrote:
>> CMT has next to nothng to say on the issue
>> of phenomenal consciousness and so
>> does Brouno's "comp"
> Yes, I agree. One must be careful not to conflate the PM+CTM debate
> with the status of phenomenal consciousness. Bruno says that comp is
> able to situate the quale, but that of course is a world away from
> explaining it.
With UDA alone, of course not.
But AUDA does provides a a theory of qualia which explains why no 1-
person can and will ever explain the qualitative feature of its qualia.
And AUDA is "just" a translation of UDA in the language of a universal
machine. It provides a complete precise mathematical theory of both
quanta and qualia themselves related and surrounded by 6 other
AUDA gives the universal machine's theory of consciousness and matter,
When I talk on consciousness it means always what Ned Block calls
phenomenal consciousness. Consciousness is a quale. It is a quale
related to the instinctive bet on a reality, or on (self) consistency
and intensional variants. The Solovay G/G* splitting, or the
terrestrial/heaven splitting, inherited by the material hypostases
explains very well the qualia, including why we have the correct 1-
feeling that we cannot explain them in any 3-ways.
UDA explains the comp reversal to humans.
AUDA: the universal machine explains the comp reversal to herself or
any universal machine which can hear.
AUDA can be weakened in the transfinite: "alpha-AUDA", where "alpha-
universal machine" can explain their alpha-comp reversal, and this
means AUDA applies to a very much larger class of entities that the
The math for UDA is high school math.
The math for AUDA is usually called "advanced mathematical logic,
recursion or computability theory, modal logic".
I am aware that I am a scientist wandering on philosophical,
theological, ideological territories, but comp, once assumed and taken
seriously, makes possible to translate many questions in those "human"
fields in arithmetical exact problem.
And don't make any misunderstanding here: it makes us more ignorant
and modest, and necessarily.
That's what I like there, that the "theology of the machine" we get is
non normative. She gives almost a constructive warning like "As far as
I am consistent, I will defeat all your complete or total theories",
or "You can't know who I am, can you?".
I love that being.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at