On 04 Jul 2011, at 07:25, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

“It sound more like you are reifing body and system.”
Would you rather me rarefy it?

Worst. I don't give you any choice, *in* the mechanist theory. But I am talking on primitive bodies. They are so rare that they don't exist. But beliefs in bodies exists, and I can explain why (or refer to papers, because it is not so shortly explainable).




“Consciousness here and now is accepted by many as the most
undoubtable
truth”
That to which you point by the indicator consciousness, observe that…
it is not a clear and defined perception,

OK. But neither is time.



it is not a clearly
delineated “thing”…

Not sure. You know what it is. Just now, you can hardlmy doubt you are, even if you can doubt being awaken or dreaming, you know that you are conscious. You know that you are not an instance of philosophical zombie. All right? You can't prove it, nor even really express it, but you know you are living it here and now.





it is a obscure and indefinite I-don’t-know-
whatness, an unknown unknown… something that cannot be clearly stated
or comprehended or defined…

Yes! It is exactly that :)



so you cannot say what it is…

You can approximate. It is in between believing and knowing there is *some* reality.




By calling
it consciousness you trick us… because you give us the impression we
know what it is or that it is, that we have some grip or handle on it
or that it is an object of knowledge.

Once there is self-consciousness, it certainly is. You know that you are conscious. You know perfectly what it is. It is what makes pain painful. You can attribute it to others. In computer science there are many object and properties which cannot be defined, yet can have a role in providing solutions to combinatorial problems, and it can be show that universal machine looking inward discover an ocean made of those non nameable things. The comp theory of mind is 99,99999999...% a theory of ignorance.





Buddhists have been grappling
with the problem of so called consciousness for millennia… where have
they gotten?

At least they do not burn alive non buddhist, or very less often so. What do you mean "where have they gotten"?



They either b.s. or they claim that it is not what it
appears to be, that it is not a definitive thing, that it is
unrealized, and that its “essential nature” is something other then
what it appears to be… blah blah blah… they claim it is this or that….
the “primordial ground of reality” or “pure subtle energy” and other
fantastical notions…. So who knows what consciousness is?

All Löbian machines. That is all universal machine who knows its own universality. They have precise laws of thought (Boole) and laws of mind (Gödel, Löb, Solovay, .... computer science. I explained this in all detail in french, alas).




“Body and system are rather clearly mind constructions to organize
experience.”
But so is mind and mind-construction a mind-construction.

I was alluding to a result that I have explain in this forum. I think that you assume the existence of a physical primitive universe. I don't. Mind construction are some definable, and some non definable number relation (I do assume mechanism!).




Do you
distinguish between consciousness and experience?

Only if the context forces me to introduce nuances. I use at first the term in the largest sense possible. So consciousness and subjective experience, and first person experience are basically the same things. Now, I can give restricted definition, like accessible personal memories, to reason and prove things about those notion.



I think your choice in the usage of the term theology is not very
insightful. What etymological grounds and logic do you have for this?

Many reasons:
Computationalism, alias digital mechanism, is a theological hypothesis. It is the belief in a form of technologically possible reincarnation, (cf the "yes doctor" in the sane04 paper), and once you grasp the Universal Dovetailer argument, it is more than that (comp immortality, quantum immortality, consciousness becoming a prison (Rossler), etc. Then in arithmetic I define the theology of a machine/number as the set of arithmetical proposition true about that machines. I limit myself to "sound" machines (they prove only true sentences), and the incompleteness phenomenon splits the truth into the provable and unprovable part. Yet a lot of unprovable truth are still accessible, by betting for example, by the machine, despite being non provable. And then the theology of the correct self-introspecting machine offers an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus, but also of some text by Lao-Tse, and give a light on some mystical discourse which reverse the usual idea mind-matter.

Another reason is strategical and concern the long term. We will not win again the fairy-tales theologies, which maintains the humans in the age of irresponsibility (let daddy think for you), without tolerating the doubt (that is the scientific method) in the field. In that vein, it is a way to suggest that the debate between atheists and christians is really a dispute between two variants of Aristotle theology, and to mention that things like QM (perhaps) and DM (certainly) point on possible different sort of theology.

I answer you other post hereby:

On 04 Jul 2011, at 07:57, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:


Bruno, what makes you think that mathematics can apply to anything
beyond the physical world, is not mathematics restricted to the domain
of the physical world....


Why? And what do you mean by "physical world". This is plausibly just the inside view of arithmetical reality (provably so with the digital mechanist assumption). Just ask, and I can explain the proof, or I will refer to a link where I am going to explain it, because, I have already explain this more than one times on this list. It is not difficult at all, except for *some* point. Anyway, I have never really believe in a *primitive* physical universe. But I do believe in the physical reality, and the local stability of natural laws. I give an explanation why the appearance of this are unavoidable for a vast class of machine's points of view.

it doesn't apply to the qualitative metaphysical domain of anima-
psyche.

In which theory? What are your assumption?
The fact are that the modal logic of universal machine self-reference, which are there (those have been discovered, not invented) on the contrary provides an explanation of the quality and the quantity in the domain of mind. You can take this as a toy psychology, or a toy theology, because it is limited to the case of ideal machine. But the result are negative; the ideal machine's soul falls apparently and generate matter almost exactly like Plotinus explains, when he recast Aristotle theory of matter in the Platonic realm. The toy theory of the ideal machine shows her already unable to close the gap for many qualitative aspect of their experiences, but the machines can already explain why it has to be so, if they are correct machines. That is not obvious. Gödel mentioned the staring idea, and later Hilbert and Bernays made the hard work, and later Löb simplify it considerably, ... eventually Solovay closes the propositional part of the "machine's theology" by axiomatized them in the logic G (what the machine can really say on its possibilities) and G* (what is true on its possibilities).


Bruno is totally misrepresenting and inverting Plato..... he is trying
to reduce something complex, conflicted, and ambiguous to his strange
and odd system.

Not at all. I don't care about Plato. I follow a pedagogical method to keep on pointing on the important ideas. By Plato in metaphysics I mean the often discussed and criticized idea in the dialogs that reality is not WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), that is the idea that physics is only a part of theology or of some other science (like Mathematics for the so-called Mathematicians (like Xeusippes), or arithmetic for (neo)Pythagoreans). I am aware of the labyrinths of conflicting ideas. By Plato in math, I usually mean Aristotle's middle excluded principle (the common use in philo of math). By classical theory of knowledge I mean one of the theory proposed by Theaetetus in the Theatetus. But usually I recall all that, and the motivation is to explain some result in computer science which put light on the reversal mind/matter forced by the Universal Dovetailer Argument. I have no odd system. Just an odd result (odd with respect to Aristotle theology) in a very well known classical theory. QM is weird, but DM is weirder. Perhaps even false. We don't know yet. You might try to find a flaw. I have many versions. Above a rigor threshold people get sleepy, and below, they misunderstand. UDA is enough to get that the comp transforms the mind-body problem in a body problem. Then a second part (AUDUA) translates the problem in arithmetical terms.

On this list many agrees that the "TOE" needs the shape of "everything" with some measure (the big debate was between the degree of relativity of that measure). I show that the Church Turing thesis, gives a very solid notion of everything, with a natural way to isolated the self-relative measure keeping distinct the communicable and incommunicable part of the experiences. The only bad news is that it needs math and math tools (theoretical computer science, mathematical logic). But UDA needs only a passive understanding of Church thesis (the existence of a universal digital machine). Only AUDA needs some amount of mathematical logic.

Bruno







On Jul 3, 7:34 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 02 Jul 2011, at 21:24, B Soroud wrote:









"A property of consciousness is"

it sounds like you are reifying "consciousness"... consciousness is
not a thing in itself, consciousness does not exist in and of
itself... it can only be understood within the interdependent and
complex framework of sensation, bodies, space.... consciousness of
something, in and through something.... inseparable from the system
of space, energy, matter and motion... and essential equal to it....
not something seperate and distinct from it that can exist
independently of it....

consciousness is not something that exists in itself....
consciousness is always embodied consciousness of life.... in and
through life and the complex instrument of form and the mystery of
sensation and generation. Consciousness is a phenomena of the "body"
and its natural system... and is equal to that "body" and "body
system".

it sounds like you guys are reifing consciousness....

It sound more like you are reifing body and system.

Consciousness here and now is accepted by many as the most undoubtable
truth, even if unprovable to a pair.
Body and system are rather clearly mind constructions to organize
experience.

Anyway, my point is logical. If the brain works at some level like a
digital machine, then physics emerge from arithmetic (or any universal
system (in the Post Church Turing sense).

Computationalism makes the mind body problem into a math problem,
sometimes called the "measure problem" in this list.

In the theory of digital machines (theoretical computer science)
consciousness appears like a word used by machines to refer to
something they want consider as true, even undoubtable, yet
incommunicable/unprovable. It has a role, including a role in the
origin and stability of the material observable.

I can only refer you to my papers (see my url). My goal is not to
argue on the truth, nor even the plausibility that the brain act as a
Turing machine, but that IF that is true then Plato's theology is more
correct than Aristotle, in a way which is empirically testable. Just
to be short and clear. Comp makes theology a science. In all case,
even if comp is false, it happens that machines have an interesting
theology, where theology is defined as the set of propositions true
*about* a machine (as opposed to science, which is what machine can
prove).

To oppose theology and science makes both theology and science into a
pseudo-theology.
Everything I say is just consequences of taking seriously the idea
that we might survive with an artificial digital brain. If we get a
contradiction (not weirdness) then we refute comp. If we get only
weirdness, then we can compare it to the weirdness around you and see
if the theory shed some light.

You seem to assume some Aristotelian notion of matter (system, body,
energy, ...). Well, that just cannot work unless you postulate a
special type of non computationalist theory of mind. That is all my
point. I do not pretend this is entirely obvious.

Bruno











On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Pzomby <htra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 1, 4:23 am, selva kumar <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is consciousness causally effective ?

In my opinion, yes, if in simple terms, it is logically correct to
state:  A property of consciousness is….the capacity and ability of
individual human consciousness to create intentionally desired
physical and mental effects.

--
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 
athttp://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 
athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

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 .


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.

Reply via email to