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: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626v4 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.
Best,
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.
