On 13 March 2011 17:26, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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.
>

-- 
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