On 13 March 2011 17:26, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Bruno, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "relative self-accelerator" in the above. What is "accelerating" what? David > > 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) > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
