On 24 Feb 2010, at 08:22, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 23 Feb 2010, at 06:45, Rex Allen wrote:
It seems to me that there are two easy ways to get rid of the hard
1) Get rid of 1-p. (A la Dennettian eliminative materialism)
2) Get rid of 3-p. (subjective idealism)
For the reasons I've touched on above I don't see that introducing
idea of a material world explains anything at all. Therefore, I
for getting rid of 3-p, except as a calculational device.
The idea of a material world that exists fundamentally and uncaused
while giving rise to conscious experience is no more coherent than
idea that conscious experience exists fundamentally and uncaused and
gives rise to the mere perception of a material world (as everyone
accepts happens in dreams).
What is the problem with this solution?
You forget "3)
3) get rid of physical-3-p, but keep mathematical (arithmetical) 3-
is "objective idealism".
And this you need in any account ... if only as 'calculational
Then computer science solves the hard part of the mind problem,
price of having to derive the physical laws from the belief that
develop naturally from self-introspection. And it is not so amazing
(re)find the type of theory developed by the greeks among those who
both mystic and rationalist. They did introspect themselves very
Wait my next post to David for how comp does solve the hard problem
Hmmmm. Well, I think that your proposal suffers from the same
explanatory gap as physicalism.
No. Physicist have not yet addressed really the problem of
With computationalism we can formulate the question.
And yes, there is also a gap.
But the gap is made precise, justified, and has a mathematical geometry.
So numbers and their relations and machines and whatnot exist
platonically. Okay. So far so good.
BUT I don't see why these things in any combination or standing in any
relation to each other should give rise to conscious experience - any
more than quarks and electrons stacked in certain arrangements should
You can do it with quark and electron, but if it works because those
quark and electron compute the releant digital number relation, then,
if you say yes to the doctor, I have to derive the observability of
quark and electrons from the number relations, of the combinator
I believe you that there is some mathematical description or
representation of my experiences...
But I have never said that, although I am aware it may look
superficially like that. I will say "belief" for your representation
(and indeed beliefs are represented, it is roughly speaking the 'body'
of the person).
experiments appear when beliefs cross consistency,
and experience appears when beliefs cross truth.
And I have no proof of consistency to offer, nor real name or
definition of truth. Except for more simpler (than us) Löbian machines.
but I don't see why the existence
of such a representation, platonic OR physically embodied, would
result in conscious experience...?
Conscious experience is an oxymoron. I think.
No representation is conscious. Nor any body (which are relative
Consciousness or knowledge, like truth, but unlike consistency, has no
finite representation whatsoever.
It is more the platonic and non representable person who is conscious.
Representations are only maps to prevent being completely lost when
entangled with other universal entities and histories. They guide the
soul, or channel the consciousness, in the normal coherent histories.
The soul intersects truth and representation, and may intersect
consistency too (and other variants). (and many other concept of
computer science can help to elaborate this approach).
When be bet on a substitution level, we bet on a coding, not on a
representation, and hopefully the coding level is at a lower level
than the level needed for the possible local representations in play,
relatively to our most probable histories.
The 3-self has a (local) name: it is your body, or a digital copy
(with comp), a relative "Gödel number".
The 1-self has no name. It inherits this feature from truth (which has
no name too, for the machine).
But comp and mathematical logic makes it possible to prove theorems
*about* those non nameable entities (associated to ideally correct
Comp prevents the possibility to give you publicly a name, or to solve
publicly the koan "Who am I?". It allows you to refute any normative
theory about you. As I said often, it is a vaccine against person
representation, categorization, etc.
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
For more options, visit this group at