Bruno Marchal wrote:

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.

But that is like saying there are quasi-stable chaotic attractors in the neural processes of brains which are related to perception, feeling, and action and are good candidates for qualia. Having a "good candidate" how do you test whether it IS qualia. I think this is where the theory of consciousness will turn out to be like the theory of life. The description of brain processes and their relation to reported qualia will become more and more detailed and qualia will come to seen to cover many distinct things and eventually the question of what is consciousness will no longer seem to be an interesting question.

Consciousness is explained by being a fixed point of universal transformation.

Universal transformation of what? Is there more than one 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",

The only role of 'primitive matter' seems to be that it instantiates nomologically possible things and not others. It's the same as saying the world is to some extent contingent.

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.

I'm certainly no expert on the philosophy of mathematics, but I have a mathematician friend who is a fictionalist - which I think is what you refer to as "conventionalism". So referring to experts I seem to find it an open question:

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.

But it is about facts in some timeless, placeless world that seems to be rather different from this one. Do you think there is a fact-of-the-matter about whether the continuum hypothesis is true?



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