On 20 Feb 2011, at 19:46, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Embryogenesis concerns a multicellular organism

Obviously. But you ask for the *mind* of cells, which are unicellular, (although I like currently to see them as bacteria (+ a virus) occupying a sort of house).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis

I am not sure if one can speak of embryogenesis of amoeba or bacteria.

I was talking on the multicellular planaria:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9EuFuJF9N0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXN_5SPBPtM

My self-regenerating program PLANARIA was made of many cells, subprograms occupying different locations (in the code), and having different functions. Yet you can cut it in many pieces as little as one cell, and any such one cell regenerates the entire program!
It is described in the volume 2, 2, here:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html
(That work describes theorem provers, in LISP, for each hypostasis).

The recursion theoretic answer to self-regeneration gives the conceptual solution to embryogenesis, as that one cell regenerating complete "planaria" illustrates. Of course the whole thing is far more sophisticated for the carbon implemented local living beings.




So my question was actually about human being. I believe that I was conceived by fertilization the ovum in my mother by sperm from my father. Then the question is how my first person view has been developed and what happens with it after my death?

That's the question I have always been interested in.

OK, I will "answer" it, but please add as many grains of salt as needed.

The answer is that it depends to what you identify your soul to.
If you identify yourself (your 1-self) as you in company of your dog Pluto, you will already die the day Pluto dies.

So your first person view will go as far as the condition are met such that you can say "OK, I survive this far".

Where is located your 'first person', your 'soul'. Well the theory (Bp & p) says that is located both - 'on earth', by which I mean 'effectively implemented', that is by a number ( a 'body') incarnating (implementing itself) a set of beliefs (Bp), - and in Platonia (p), because the soul keep up the umbilical cord between its body (Bp) and truth p.

How? Lucklily or because glued by an explosive sheaves of coherent histories in the computational continuum (but this is more sensibility: Bp & Dp & p).

So what happens after your death?

First there is no evidence that 'death' ever happens as a first person experience. Second, as I said, it might depend on what you identify yourself with.

You do "know", accepting the theory of the universal lobian machine, that you have a part on Earth (Bp, provable) and a part in Heaven(Hell- Platonia-truth) (p). And I said, you have the choice for the identification.

I am not sure if you have followed the UDA from step 1 to step 8. It is something that you can, if not understand the necessity (assuming comp) at least understand the possibility. Your consciousness is not related to the "physical brain state", it is related to the person, itself related to the infinities of computational histories going through their current digital states. Normally this is easier to conceive for the quantum many-worlders than anyone else. Your consciousness is related to a continuum of computational histories, and below your substitution level, all universal machines competes, with all oracles. Now, given that continuum; locally you can conceive that your consciousness is a consciousness flux going through many computations (which are all emulated by the additive and multiplication relations among natural numbers). So it is, with that view, even unclear if you can die in any way, or at any time, from your first person view. In principle you survive always in the most normal computation (comp-immortality).

But less us assume you can die. (What does that mean?). The relation between provability (Bp) and truth (p) run very deep.

If you can survive the death of your dog, you might survive with less memories, or, like in dreams, with other memories. Here this might leads to thought experiment involving amnesia and memories substitution, which can help, but also perturbates a little bit. And the same can be said for "real" experimentation with drugs.

In principle, you might discover that you are already happy to be just a modest universal machine, and what can seem to be amazing is that could correspond to a sort of "enlightened-altered" state of consciousness which is statical, that machine is in Platonia, and can know it (it is outside of time space and numbers). Through amnesia consciousness can backtrack on histories, and by remorse, might undifferentiate you and redifferentiate you, wandeling on the coherent multi-dreams until you make peace with your self, or just recognize your self. This is speculative, AUDA gives the tools to ask the machine. It is technically hard to answer those question todays.

Dissociative drugs are very interesting. Unlike cannabis which put oil on all synapses and augment the relative activity of all neurons, a dissociative drug like Salvia seems to cut the connection, very selectively, between parts of your brain. It gives tool to discover that we can identify ourselves to something more basic and primary, even up to that state "out of time and space".

The "error" of many aristotelians consist in "attaching" consciousness to the "the brain". It seems to me that a literal understanding of comp leads to the understanding that consciousness is not related to the brain, but to the infinity of similar brain (emulated in arithmetic). If you assume a "big" universe, you don't need MGA (the step 8) to see that. A body brain is more a filter of consciousness so that a person evolves through "normal histories". Consciousness accelerates the histories, it bends somehow the 1-computational space.

Evgenii, you ask the most difficult question, although I consider it to be both very important, but also that it is important that we cannot know the answer. It is not serious to be to much serious on this. But we can propose theories, reason, experiments, and progress in that field too, never pretending we have the truth. Experimentally, through the mentally ill and their medication, many information can be drawn, also. Listening to the other is a good heuristic.

Probably the Tibetans got the main point. After death, nothing is easy, and there can be more death and more taxes. There is a whole arithmetical bardo thodol, I think. Not all experiences are memorizable, and comp keeps a part of the secret naturally. You might after death, wake up as someone, in the year 9007 after JC, who was, for a minute, emulating a moment of a life of Evgenii Rudnyi. And that, might depend if we succeed to keep up teaching math to our children.

It is ironical that with mechanism, when a machine has the cognitive ability to get the point on its possibility to perpetuate its local implementation (with an 'artificial' brain), she has the cognitive ability to get the point that she will survive anyway, no matter what. It is the comp-immortality stuff, and if things goes well, it should explain the quantum immortality stuff. But with amnesia, immortality itself get more, much more, than one meaning. The real question concern first person plural immortality, and on this 'we are nowhere", sorry.

Anyway, what matter are our values. To share them. To multiply them, if only to make higher the credibility that they will apply to you who ever you are.

Ah! I think I can say this, assuming two seconds that hell and heaven exist. There is a good news and there is a bad news. The bad news is that in Heaven, there are still (many) doors to Hell. The good news is that in Hell there are (few) doors to Heaven. And this might be used to comfort the harm-reduction philosophy on theoretical computer science grounds.

I have probably asserted many propositions belonging to G* minus G, which should be kept secret, and I hope some plant will forgiven me from this :) The key is that *you* add the grains of salt, and notably the comp hypothesis, the local but interrogative self-correctness, etc.

Best,

Bruno






on 20.02.2011 18:21 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 19 Feb 2011, at 22:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

A bit off topic question. How embryogenesis fits comp, digital
physics, ALG, and other diverse points of view expressed here? What
mind-body research says about the development of mind from a
single cell and then its death?

Embryogenesis fits very well. The second recursion theorem of Kleene
provides the conceptual solution of a problem given by Descartes:
how to build a machine capable of self-reproduction. I have explained
the 'trick' sometimes. I use a generalisation by John Case to program
'planarias", that is programs which are ble to regenerate themselves
when cut in parts. I illustrate that embryogenesis can be described
by case's generalization of Kleene's recursion theorem. In fact in
computer science, Kleene's theorem can be seen as the most
fundamental theorem of 'abstract biology'.

The quitessence of the trick is to apply a duplicator D to itself. If
Dx gives xx, DD gives DD.

The same trick is used for handling self-reference by machines and
theories, or belief systems, and this leads to G and G*, and their
variant.

Single complex cells like amoeba and paramecia or other sophisticated
protozoa have, imo, a mind, and I collect the evidences that there
are indeed complex infomation possible pathways implemented in those
cells. I tend to believe that bacteria could have a mind, or some
collective mind, but it is less obvious, unless you agree that a
human is already a complex society of bacteria (a eucaryote cell can
be seen as the house of bacteria, together perhaps one virus (the
nucleus!).

The first person death of an amoeba? Hard question! I guess an amoeba
might not filter a lot of consciousness flux, nor much memories, but
I can't know that. With comp, consciousness might not be related to
the 'brain volume'; those are very hard question, and they might
depend on the way the WR are eliminated, that is how the physical
laws emerge.

Individual bacteria are (Turing) universal, but plausibly not
Löbian.

Bruno





Evgenii

P.S. By the way, in Second Life there is course where Prof Gordon &
Gordon teach Embryogenesis Explained

Embryo Physics Course, most Thursdays at 2-3pm Pacific Time, held
online at http://slurl.com/secondlife/Silver%20Bog/84/32/60

It gives a nice overview of the process in question.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send
email to everything-list@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.


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-list@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 .


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-list@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.

Reply via email to