On 18 Jan 2010, at 00:37, Rex Allen wrote:

The patterns I've observed don't explain my conscious experience. There's nothing in my concept of "patterns" which would explain how it might give rise to conscious experience. So I fully buy the idea that patterns (physical or platonic) can be used to represent aspects of what I experience. And that these patterns can be updated in a way so that over time they represent how my experiences change over time. What I don't see is why this would give rise to anything like the qualia of my conscious experience. There is an explanatory gap. And I don't see how any new information about patterns or the ways of updating them will close that gap. And for me that's really the deal-breaker for any causal explanations of consciousness, as opposed to considering it fundamental.

`This is what computer science and provability logic explains. Digital`

`pattern, once their combinatorial properties makes them universal,`

`obeys a rich set of mathematical law, which justifies eventually the`

`existence of true undoubtable but incommunicable, yet self-observable,`

`states which are good candidate of qualia.`

`Consciousness is explained by being a fixed point of universal`

`transformation. If you do the math (self-reference logic) it justifies`

`many of our propositions intuitively believed on consciousness,`

`including the existence of the explanation gap, and the non`

`definability of consciousness. Consciousness is in between truth and`

`consistency.`

`Physics does not help, except by picking up the local "universal`

`machine" from the neighborhood. But this "physical explanation" does`

`not give a role to "primitive matter", it just use the universal`

`pattern allowed by observation, and comp has the remaining problem of`

`justifying that picking up. Why quantum computations?`

`To take "consciousness" as ontologically fundamental seems rather`

`awkward to me. You can only get to "don't ask" type of answer. It is`

`the symmetric error of the Aristotelian.`

`At least, with the number, we have already enough to understand that`

`we have to take them as fundamental, because nothing less than the`

`numbers can explain the numbers. Then consciousness can be described`

`by the first person state of knowledge available to the numbers.`

`The whole number theology is explain by addition and multiplication,`

`only. It works in explaining the "mystery" aspect of the views from`

`inside.`

`Sometimes I have a feeling that you are not aware that`

`"conventionalism" in math is dead. There is no "causality" in math,`

`but there are many sort of implications and entailment, capable of`

`explaining the illusion and persistence of causal relations. Math`

`kicks back.`

`Are our life sort of dreams? I think so, but I think this has to be`

`made precise (indeed testable) and explained. Who are the dreamers?`

`Why does they dream, etc. Do I interact genuinely with others? etc.`

Math is not only about representations. It is also about facts. Bruno 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.