On 05 Jul 2011, at 01:27, B Soroud wrote:

frankly... I don't believe an artificial brain is possible....

`So you should love the theorem. It might be a first step toward a`

`refutation of comp, but up to now, it leads only to quantum weirdness`

`and neoneoplatonism (neoplatonism + Church thesis).`

that is Gods trick...... God, in so far as he exists, made it thatno artificial brain would ever be possible.... hence he is God(medieval scholastic logic).

What do you mean by "God"?

"and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtualrealities spreading in the galaxy and beyond (in most futures). "If this is the future... remind me to commit suicide when it comes....

`That does not work. yes, with comp, suicide does no more guaranty you`

`escape reality. The atheist conception of death appears as ... wishful`

`thinking.`

or start a violent resistance/revolution movement (against thesedamn crazy mad scientists)..... the French (post-structuralists)will join with me on this huh?

`No need to worry. The ethic of comp is the right to say "no" to the`

`doctor. I insist on this. Once a theology is a science, you have the`

`moral duty to doubt it, and you cannot impose to any one.`

sounds too much like Ghost in the Shell, Terminator, and Matrix huh?

`Mechanism is a constant thema in the human psyche since the beginning.`

`Diderot defines rationalism by mechanism. Of course most still believe`

`that mechanism is compatible with materialism, but I have shown it`

`cannot be.`

get out of town with your sterile and pseudo-godly but in factgodless mad scientist vision.

`There is no vision, just reasoning. If you don't belive in comp, then`

`you are coherent with your materialist assumption. You should love the`

`reasoning (but not too much QM and the many indirect confirmations of`

`comp by nature).`

Bruno

p.s. I like you so don't get mad.On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:55, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here.... Bruno is too, nevertheless he gives me a headache. even if he was right, I hope hes wrong.You make me feel guilty. My defense is that science is not wishfulthinking. The consolation is that comp might be wrong, but many ofus will believe it true, and practically that's how we will expandsourselves in virtual realities spreading in the galaxy and beyond(in most futures). The real question is not do you accept anartificial brain, but do you accept that you daughter marry a manwho has already accepted an artificial brain.I can't change the taste of people. The same problem occurs withsalvia divinorum. Some find the experience scary. Some find it justwonderful.Perhaps humans want to be ignorant. Truth, and other possibletruth, are scary. I think that in the long run the attitudeconsisting in hiding possible scary ideas is not winning. The longera lie, or an error, is hidden, the biggest the shock when it isconfronted with truth. I say often that Truth wins all the war,without any army. But to be franc, I am not entirely sure of that.Or it can take times.It is a paradox of democracy : people can vote for a dictator. It isthe paradox of religion: people seems to accept the argument byauthority. Humans follows leaders, like the wolves. They like tobelong in club, the mood is not really for introspection, and stillless for the obviously not so simple study of machine's introspection.Often I hope myself to be wrong too, but then I hope someone showsme wrong. Young people understand the seven first steps without toomuch problem, and they see the problem (in big and robust universe).Step 8 is conceptually harder, and I am still trying to simplify itand make clearer the logical argument. I have already talked on this(cf the 323-principle).And AUDA is simple in modal terms, but the precise justification ofthat use is a difficult theorem in logic (Solovay), which sums up(through two formal systems: G and G*) a long chains of key theoremsin logic, beginning with Gödel. Logicians often talk in term ofaxiomatizable theories, but those can be shown essentiallyequivalent with the recursively enumerable sets (machines,intensional (relative) numbers).Is it so enormous to say that comp needs computer science?Theoretical computer science is born in math, well before computerswere build, (excepting some part of Babbage universal machine). Theyare many amazing results.Bruno On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> wrote: Has anyone watched the movie "Contact", in which the structure of the universe was encoded in the transcendental number Pi? What if something like that is what is going on, and that's the answer to all paradoxes? So the physical universe beings with "Pi" encoded in the Big Bang, chaotically inflates, and eventually cools and contracts back to itself until it is again, exactly the mathematical description of "Pi". All consciousness is thus contain with Pi. But then, Pi is just like any other transcendental number! So all transcendental numbers contain all existence F.H.On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King<stephe...@charter.net>wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. From: Jason Resch Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure.Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematicaltruth,any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth.Ifmathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, itmustexist outside sets of axioms altogether. [SPK]I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only existin ourminds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it bepossiblethat our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplisticto definethe kind of set that is necessary? ** 1) More is answered by: A: "Math -> Matter -> Minds" (or as Bruno suggests "Math -> Minds -> Matter") than by B: "Matter -> Minds -> Math", or C: "Minds -> (Matter, Math)".Compared to "B", "A" explains the unreasonable effectiveness of mathin thenatural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe (with the Anthropic Principle), and with computationalism explains QM."C" has the least explanatory power, and we must wonder why theexperiencecontained within our minds seems to follow a compressible set ofphysicallaws, and why mathematical objects seem to posses objectiveproperties butby definition lack reality.Those who say other universes do not exist are only adding baselessentitiesto their theory, to define away that which is not observed. It waswhat ledto theories such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulatedcollapseas a random selection of one possible outcome to be made real andcause therest to disappear. Similarly, there are string theorists which hopeto findsome mathematical reason why other possible solutions to stringtheory areinconsistent, and the one corresponding to the the standard model istheonly one that exists. Why? They think this is necessary to maketheirtheory agree with observation, but when the very thing is unobservable according to the theory it is completely unnecessary. The situation is reminiscent of DeWitt and Everett:In his letter, DeWitt had claimed that he could not feel himselfsplit,so, as mathematically attractive as Everett's theory was, he said,it couldnot be true. Everett replied in his letter to DeWitt that, hundredsof yearsago, after Copernicus had made his radical assertion that the Earthrevolvedaround the sun instead of the reverse, his critics had complainedthat theycould not feel the Earth move, so how could it be true? RecallingEverett'sresponse to him decades later, in which he pointed out how Newtonianphysicsrevealed why we don't feel the Earth move, DeWitt wrote, "All Icould saywas touché!" 2) I don't know. Godel proved that any sufficiently complex axiomaticsystem can prove that there are things that are true which it cannotprove.Only more powerful systems can prove the things which are notprovable inthose other axiomatic systems, but this creates an infinite hierarchy. Whether or not there is some ultimate top to it I don't know.But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systemsarethere? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's sayN=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursivedefinitionof the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and istherefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large,thenin a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n+1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind.The fractal is just an example of a simple formula leading to verycomplexoutput. The same is true for the UDA: for i = 0 to inf: for each j in set of programs: execute single instruction of program j add i to set of programs That simple formula executes all programs. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"? If so, why?I don't know what lower bound of information or complexity isrequired forminds. [SPK]Why are we sure that a “lower bound of information” or“complexity” isrequired? Seriously, there seems to be a bit of speculation from toofewfacts when it comes to consciousness! **I should clarify, I don't know what the lower bound is or if thereis one.That said I do believe information and computation are importantlyrelatedto consciousness. Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. The latter seems more plausible to me.Through recursion one can implement any form of computation.Recursion iscommon and easy to show in different mathematical formulas, whileshowing aTuring machine is more difficult. Many programs which can be easilydefinedthrough recursion can also be implemented without recursion, so Iwas notimplying recursion is necessary for minds. For example,implementing theFibonacci formula iteratively would look like: Fib(N) X = 1 Y = 1 for int i = 2 to N: i = X + Y X = Y Y = i print YThis program iteratively computes successive Fibonacci numbers, andwilloutput the Nth Fibbonaci number. Jason There was a bug in that program, replace the last two "i"s with "j", otherwise it breaks out of the loop too early. :-) -- [SPK] The existence of such Numbers could be a telltale sign that numbers require an eternal computation to define them. I'm not sure, I can define Pi without an infinite description or computation. Pi = circumference of a unit circle / 2I would agree that determining Pi from that definition probably doesrequirean eternal/infinite amount of computation though. Jason --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups"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 GoogleGroups "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 GoogleGroups "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 GoogleGroups "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.