On 09 May 2011, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/9/2011 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 May 2011, at 19:36, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/7/2011 8:19 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Thanks, Russell,
I am gladly standing corrected about our fellow smart animals.
We speak about a "self-awareness" as we, humans identify it in our human terms and views. Maybe other animals have different mental capabilities we cannot pursue or understand, as adjusted to their level of complexity usable in their 'menatality'. It may - or may not - be only according to their number of neurons as our conventional sciences teach. Or some may use senses we are deficient in, maybe totally ignorant about. (We have a deficient smelling sense as compared to a dog and missing orientation's senses of some birds, fish, turtle) In our anthropocentric boasting we believe that only our human observations are 'real'.
Thanks for setting me straight

Not only do other species have different perceptual modalities; even within the "self-awareness" there are different kinds. Referring to my favorite example of the AI Mars rover, such a rover has awareness of it's position on the planet. It has awareness of it's battery charge and the functionality of various subsystems. It has awareness of its immediate goal (climb over that hill) and of some longer mission (proceed to the gully and take a soil sample). It's not aware of where these goals arise (as humans are not aware of why they fall in love). It's not aware of it's origins or construction. It's not a social creature, so it's not aware of it's position in a society or of what others may think of it.

I expect that when we have understood consciousness we will see that it is a complex of many things, just as when we came to understand life we found that it is a complex of many different processes.

Life and consciousness are different notion with respect to the notion of explanation we can find from them. In case of life, we can reduce a third person describable phenomenon to another one (for example we can argue that biology is in principle reduced to chemistry, which is reduced to physics). For consciousness there is an hard problem, which is the mind-body problem, and most people working on the subject agree that it needs another sort of explanation. Then comp shows that indeed, part of that problem, is that if we use the "traditional" mechanistic rationale, we inherit the need of reducing physics to number theory and intensional number theory, with a need to explicitly distinguish first person and third person distinction. In a sense, the "hard problem" of consciousness leads to an "hard problem of matter" (the first person measure problem). Of course, I do think that mathematical logic put much light on all of this, especially the self-reference logics. Indeed, it makes the problem a purely mathematical problem, and it shows quanta to be a particular case of qualia. So we can say that comp has already solved the conceptual problem of the origin of the coupling consciousness/matter, unless someone can shows that too much white rabbits remains predictible and that normalization of them is impossible, in which case comp is refuted.


I don't see that reducing consciousness to mathematics is any different than reducing it to physics.

It is more easy to explain the illusion of matter to an immaterial consciousness, than to explain the non-illusion of consciousness to something material.

Consciousness can be explained by fixed point property of number transformation, in relation to truth, and this explains 99% of consciousness (belief in a reality) and 100% of the illusion of matter, which is really the illusion that some particular universal number plays a particular role.

Each time I demand a physicist to explain what is matter, he can only give to me an equation relating numbers. With math, it is different, we have all relation between numbers, and we can understand, by listening to them, why some relation will take the form of particular universal number, having very long and deep computations, and why they will be taken statistically as describing a universe or a multiverses.

Aren't you are still left with "the hard problem" which now becomes "Why do these number relations produce consciousness?".

Not true. The math explains why some number relatively to other numbers develop a belief in a reality, and it explains why such a belief separates into a communicable part and a non communicable part. This is entirely explained by the G/G* splitting and their modal variant (based on the classical theory of knowledge).

 I don't think this "hard problem" is soluble.

An explanation gap remains, but then those number can understand why an explanation gap has to remain, for purely logical reason. This explain why we do feel that there is something non explainable. But it is 99% explainable, and this includes a complete explanation why there is, necessarily, a remaining 1% which cannot be explained, but which can be reduced to our belief in the natural numbers. In any case, comp forces us to reduce physics to number "psychology", and this explain conceptually the existence of the physical realm. And we get a simple and elegant theory of everything: addition and multiplication.

Rather what can be solved is how to make devices, like intelligent Mars Rovers and parts of brains the doctor can insert, which act conscious. And further to understand which computations correspond to different kinds of thoughts, such as "awareness of self as a part of society" or "feeling of guilt" or "I'm in Moscow". When we have that kind of engineering mastery of AI, the "hard problem" will be seen as a simplistic, archaic wrong question.

Not at all. If your device is conscious by virtue of doing some right computation, from the point of view of the device itself, his reality must be described by a sum on all computations going through its states, implying that physics must be non local, indeterminist, etc. This *explains* the quantum without postulating it. And the logic of such self-referential programs explains also the qualia, and the gap of explanation for the qualia/consciousness. In fact physics explains nothing, it just take for granted some special universal number (the physical law), and reduce everything to it. The math, even just arithmetic, explains where universal numbers comes from, and how and why they dream, and why some dreams become sharable and define physical realities, with their sharable and non sharable parts.

The hard problem is the real fundamental issue. Its comp solution really explains why they are quanta and qualia, and the laws such things obey. Physicalism/materialism eventually neglect the person and its consciousness, or build an unintelligible dualism. Physics does not even try to understand its own origin, or the origin of the object it talk about. Physics only build descriptions and scenarios, by taking a theology for granted (the Aristotelian one).



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