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,  
among things.

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.

Roughly speaking:

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  
usual omega-machine.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to