On 5/9/2011 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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:
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
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
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,
What does it mean for numbers to understand? I take it you mean for
something like a Godel numbering, the numbers represent a theorem about
what can be expressed and what can be proven. But this is a model of
thought and understanding. There may be a gap between it and reality
just as there may be a gap between the models of physics and reality.
One cannot be sure a hitherto successful model is not reality itself -
but such a belief must be provisional at best.
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
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.
But what is a "sum of computations"; and it is an assumption that
computation instantiates consciousness (your theology) which seems
parallel to the physicists assumption that the 3p world can be modelled
by physical things. I see your theory as a model too. It may make some
confirmable predictions (not just retrodictions) in which case it will
be a great theory. But I don't think it will do very much for achieving
the kind of engineering mastery I mentioned.
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).
Physics aims for an invariant, i.e. 3p, model of the world. I don't
know any philosophical minded physicists who think otherwise. That
there is some reality the models refer to - that's metaphysics, not physics.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at