On 12 Mar 2011, at 18:18, Ismail Atalay wrote:   [in the FOR list]

So we should not be in a position to say "for the essence of consciousness to exist, this type of physical/mathematical features should be present in this universe". Physical/mathematical features are required for its manifestation, implementation and realization.

You might conceive that the manifestation, implementation and realization are concept definable relatively to universal numbers which are numbers coding universal partial computable function relatively to elementary arithmetic. So a minimal amount of arithmetic is required indeed. Universal numbers exists, and their many interactions are already emulated, atemporally, by the laws of addition and multiplication of non negative integers. This makes things complex because Universal numbers reflect each other including themselves.

But then, consciousness might be the 'mental' state of a universal number when it believes in a reality. Science might begin when it questions that reality, and consciousness might reappear as the unquestionable part of that reality. It can be related with a form of ignorance awareness. It can get a role of relative self-accelerator.

I agree with you that free will is not an illusion, because that ignorance is real, and *that* awareness is correct (trivially so for the ideal simple machine I study). Choice is not an alternative. There is an entertaining novel by Smullyan illustrating this in the book Mind's I. (*)

*A* non compatibilist notion of free will is correct, but it is the one where non compatibilism is relative to the personal point of view of the universal number, which cannot, indeed, entirely determinate itself, and yet, in the usual computations, has to decide of some action, relatively to some other universal numbers in its neighborhood.

Universal numbers are driven by self-satisfaction, I think, but in each universal numbers there are conflicts between lower self and higher self satisfaction. Higher self satisfaction is better in the long run, but opposes itself with short term lower self satisfaction, and free will comes from the fact that we can chose in between. Perhaps. I mean it is hard not to talk under torture, a situation which usually maximizes the conflict between the short and long term satisfactions.

Bruno Marchal

(*) (edited by Dennet and Hofstadter, which is, BTW, an excellent introduction to Digital Mechanism. Dennett come close to the first person indeterminacy indeed)


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to