Marty,

On 10 Dec 2009, at 16:40, m.a. wrote:

> Bruno,
>            This English version of the 7-Step Series is greatly  
> appreciated and I am more than willing to accept its conclusions on  
> faith. Unfortunately, it seems that the only proof of these  
> concepts, at present, requires the traversing of long chains of  
> logical formulae which I am unable to do. I assume that more easily  
> demonstrable proofs will appear when predictions based on your ideas  
> attain experimental reality e.g. teleportation, digital brain  
> recording and so on. Till then I remain, without religious  
> implications, a believer.        m.a.
>
>

You are welcome.

It is not so much a question of a long chain of reasoning, it is much  
a question of developing a familiarity with each step of the  
reasoning. Take all your time, the fun is in staying interested in the  
subject. Have you read the book "Mind's I" edited by Hofstadter and  
Dennett, it introduced the "mechanical" mind-body problem.

Sometimes (in my theses for example) I begin by the movie graph  
argument. But this is the hardest part for the physicists and for the  
logicians. It  was a shortcut to explain what is the mind body  
problem. All the rest is harder for the philosopher of mind. It is the  
dificulty of working in interdisciplinary domain.

You know, what I do is really asking question here, just making them  
precise by the discovery of the universal machine. A discovery in  
mathematics.

Apparently I am explaining UDA in the Salvia Forum here, Marty, and  
some of you may follow, and intervenes. I guess.

http://www.entheogen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25685&page=4

As exercise I let you guess what is my username on that forum. I don't  
dare to put my username on this list ;-)


Bruno



>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: The seven step series (december 2009)
>
>
> On 09 Dec 2009, at 01:42, m.a. wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>            This is a stupid question but I'm hoping it contains the  
>> kernel of an idea. Since logic is based on a few common  
>> definitions, do you really need all these complicated steps and  
>> permutations to prove a theory? Why can't you show us what you mean  
>> in a handful of clear, simple, logical  
>> statements?                            marty a.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  Have you an understanding of the six first steps, which does not  
> use much of technics. Do you have the UDA slides in front of you?
>
> Then at the seven step, all you need it to accept the idea that  
> there is a (finite) program which generates all programs together  
> with all their executions. This follows from Church thesis, as I  
> have explained, but you can skip those explanations.
>
> Yet for other, notably those who objected to the end of MGA (the  
> Movie Graph Argument) that a movie made from a filmed brain could  
> lived a conscious experience "qua computatio", I have to prepare  
> them better to the (necessarily technical) computational  
> supervenience (how consciousness is associated to infinities of  
> computations).
>
> Have you understand that "my" hypothesis is that the brain, or the  
> body, or whatever you are willing to suppose responsible for your  
> consciousness , is a machine (a digital machine, that is a machine  
> such that we can frozen its state and copy it ?). Later we will  
> relinquish a lot that assumption, note.
>
> Is the step 0, the definition of "computationalism" clear for you?  
> It is equivalent as accepting classical teleportation as a mean for  
> locomotion. The reasoning does not depend on the feasibility of  
> this, but on its logical possibility.
>
> Or do you prefer I state only the result, in english. I think, that  
> if you accept that a universal program like above exists (which it  
> did with Church thesis), then I think you can understand in which  
> sense physics arise in the mind of the machines, it is enough to get  
> some familiarity with the first sixth steps. The result is that  
> physics is derivable from computer science, assuming comp. And we  
> get as expected gift an explanation for the physical sensations, as  
> emerging from the difference between computers science (the truth,  
> in the sense of Tarski 1944) and computer's computer science (the  
> beliefs in the sense of Gödel 1931).
>
> As for AUDA there is a need to understand some mathematical theorems  
> (Gödel, Löb, Solovay). A journalistic version would be that we can  
> already make the "UDA test" to a universal machine, instead of you,  
> and use the math to see the shadows of the emergence of the physical  
> laws.
>
> This is what Lucas and Penrose missed, by the rather precise way  
> they pretend to tefute mechanism, the machine can already refute  
> their argument. This is known and completely uncontroversial in the  
> community of logicians, and many physicists agrees. But for some  
> reason that reflexion from the part of the machine is ignored.  
> Historically this has been seen already by Godel in 1931, precisely  
> proved by Hilbert and Bernays, clarified and exploited by Löb    up  
> to the discovery of G and G¨ by Solovay.
>
> Take it easy. Ask for specific questions and I may be able to be  
> more specific too. I think.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 
> .
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 
> .

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-l...@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