Resending.

## Advertising

From: Stephen P. King [mailto:stephe...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:17 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: 3-Brain <-> 1-Mind? Hi Bruno, Thanks for pointing this out to me (again?)! I think that what I have in mind in a bit more primitive than Galois connection in that I do not assume a partial ordering or any ordering at all a priori. I am trying to sketch out a structure that would have Galois connections as special cases. I think that one difference in our approaches is at the metaphysical level, in the set of basic ideas that we use. I do not assume a pre-existing ordering as I found that this notion is problematic for computational complexity reasons. I assume that Becoming is fundamental and that Being is the automorphism in it. Here is my reasoning: consider the collection of all possible minds (even those that are insane!) and the collection of all possible brains (digital or otherwise). Is there a unique mapping between these two collections such that there are multiple pairings that can represent the brains/minds of each of us as we experience a common world? We are not "frozen in time; we have the appearance of a stream of events that we experience sequentially. Additionally we have Relativity which tells us that there is no absolute frame of reference. We seem to assume that there is, but what worries me is that there has not been much thought about the necessary and sufficient conditions for such. I got the idea while studying the Monadology of Leibnitz. His Theory of Everything depends on an all-knowing entity generating a grand orchestration - a "pre-ordained harmony" - that would match any event of within one Monad with any other such that a "best possible world" would obtain. The problem is that there are at least a countable infinity of possible events that have to be matched up to see which concurrency is the "best". This is known to be a NP-Complete problem as it is the same thing as the traveling salesman problem over an infinite number of cities. What is the best route to take for such? Of course we can assume a prior existing ordering or measure by labeling events with numbers and using the natural ordering of the numbers, but this is cheating since the events themselves are not such that they have a unique value, in effect they are "fungible". This line of thinking takes us back to the discussions of Observer Moments that we had. My alternative is to drop the insistence on a priori orderings and use the idea of "local orderings" that emerge from interactions of systems that have finite computational resources. Let me get back to the Brains and minds question. Your statement that "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." is part of this but unless there is a measure that would allow one mind to select its next state out of the collection of all possible we wind up in a mess, because minds to themselves are fungible! One is just as good as any other. The UD would have to run eternally to generate the measure. Oh wait! Are you thinking of the "running the UD" itself as the measure? Hmmmmmmm, this is very interesting, but I still think that it is problematic if only because that would be equivalent to assuming a well ordering over a set that is not well founded! Are we forgetting that a mind can emulate itself emulating another mind? Isn't this exactly what we have when we imagine the thoughts of some other person that is thinking of our thoughts? Additionally, to identify an infinite process - the running of the UD - with a unique string of numbers that "just exists" doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes the problem off into a corner. More soon. Onward! Stephen P. King From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-Brain <-> 1-Mind? 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://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626v4&usg=AFQjC NF-mtZo81VEo-12FTM_w5OWW9ZYRA> 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.