Dear Stephen,

I found your message in the Google archive here (thanks to Quentin). Your messages in my mail box are indeed empty, except for the message that there is no virus. I copy your message below:

On 04 Aug 2010, at 00:06, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

This point is very important in my own research! I would like to point out that the ascription of a 1-mind to a 3-brain is such that it is not unique (as we have the example of multiple personality disorder!), it is at least a many to one map just as ascribing 3-brains to a 1-mind. I claim that this is understandable in terms of a mathematical duality relation. The trick is in figuring out how these mappings between the duals leads to a mechanism that selects individual pairs. This is what V. Pratt discovered in his work on Chu Spaces. Current work is ongoing to see if this works in
terms of Hilbert spaces. See: for the
preliminary ideas.

To associate a 1-mind to a 3-brain is the default option. But you are right, digging deeper we can say that even ONE mind is is or may be an integrated collection of different minds. I have collected all my dreams during more than 30 years, and I have observed that sometimes I can do two different dreams at once. Louis Jouvet has made the same observation and consider that this happens when the corpus callosum is shut down, for some reason. The two dreams involve arguably two minds, and after awakening we can remember the two dreams. Similar phenomena appear with the use of dissociative drugs like the toxic analgesic Ketamine or the (non toxic) Salvia divinorum, which cut momentarily connection between different part of the brain. I have many conjectures about how to interpret the entities people met when consuming salvia, including the perception, made possible by the remaining integrated limbic system, of different parts of the brains to each others. I am not sure I can related this to Pratt's work on the Chu duality, which I relate more to the usual Galois connection, but if you know better I wait for your explanations of this. Well I may perhaps see the relation, by abstracting a brain part from the others (OK then). I don't think this is relevant for the 1-mind 3-brain connection point I was recalling. I was talking about the usual integrated mind associate to an ideal fully connected 3-brain. You can associate one mind to a brain, like we do in everyday life when we talk to some person. The key and "new" point bring by digital mechanism, is that the usual identity thesis fails in the mind-brain direction. To a mind, from the mind's point of view, we have to associate (from a third person point of view) an infinity of brains (indeed all the virtual or arithmetical brains in sufficiently similar states generated by the Universal Dovetailer or by the proof of the relevant sigma_1 sentences in (Robinson) Arithmetic (by UDA). This is what makes physics a sum on an infinity of computations.



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