> You assumptions are not enough clear so I never know if you talk of what is 
> or of what seems to be.
I'm trying for 'what seems to be what is', since what is isn't
knowable and what seems to be doesn't matter if it doesn't reflect
what is.

> I limit the mystery to the numbers through the notion of machines and 
> self-reference.
If you limit the mystery, then won't what you get back be defined by
how you have defined those limits?

> Consciousness content, like fear, can modify the matter distribution
> around. At a deeper level, we select the realities which support us
> since a long time (deep computation).
I think that's true or half true, but not even the most evolved lama
or enlightened yogi can fail to react to multiple bullets fired
through their head or a massive dose of cyanide.

> The problem is to relate them to third person sharable notions.
They can't be related except through direct neurological intervention.
There is never going to be a quantitative expression to bring the
color blue to a mind which is part of a brain that has never seen
blue. You can, however, potentially intervene upon the brain
electronically, perhaps simulate a conjoined twin connection, and
create a memory of blue. Blue cannot be described quantitatively
however. An electromagnetic wavelength is not a visual experience,
it's just a measurement of linear quantity.

>We can still doubt all the content of consciousness
Then why not doubt the doubt of all the content of consciousness?

>If a part remains not explainable, then it would be nice to have a 
>meta-explanation for
> that. (and this happens with the logic of self-reference)
Not sure I'm following. The meta explanation is that physics and
perception are two sides of a coin which function in two very
different ways but they overlap in certain ways.

> > If you trust both perception and physics
>
> But that is exactly what we should not trust too much, and especially
> not take literally.
I think it's okay to trust them as long as you understand that the
trust you place in either direction has consequences. I want bridge
builders to take physics very seriously and I want artists to take
their perception very seriously. For myself, I want to be able to
focus on whatever frequencies along the continuum are most appropriate
for the context (sanity).

> I think you are bringing some identity thesis, which might force you
> to bring infinities in the picture to make it coherent. But You are
> not precise enough to make it appears.
Does this help? http://www.stationlink.com/art/dualism5.jpg




On Jul 8, 5:23 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 08 Jul 2011, at 14:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> That's what I thought he said.  But I see no reason to suppose a UD  
> >> is
> >> running, much less running without physics.  We don't know of any
> >> computation that occurs immaterially.

>
> > All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus doesn't
> > count itself. You ultimately have to have a conscious interpreter to
> > signify any particular text as quantitatively meaningful.
>
> The idea here is that a universal intepreter (and I think abacus does  
> that job) is enough. And then to reason.
> You assumptions are not enough clear so I never know if you talk of  
> what is or of what seems to be.
>
> > Unplug all
> > monitors from all computers and what do you have left? Expensive
> > paperweights.
>
> > Why not just see perception as both local-solipsistic and generic-
> > universal?
>
> I think Rex has defend such a view. It does not satisfy me. you start  
> from the mystery. I limit the mystery to the numbers through the  
> notion of machines and self-reference.
>
> > Isn't that exactly what it seems to be -
>
> Well, but that is not an argument for a platonist. If it seems like  
> this, it is certainly not this. You do describe; perhaps correctly, a  
> first person experience. The problem is to relate them to third person  
> sharable notions.
>
> > a phenomena which
> > both seamlessly integrates psychological experience and physical
> > existence together in some contexts and clearly distinguishes between
> > them in others? If that's the case, then why not see that principle of
> > a meta-dualism which is a continuum between a dualism and two monisms
> > (each representing each other as the opposite of themselves) as the
> > principle governing all phenomena, all the way up and down the
> > macrocosm-mesocosm-microcosm.?
>
> > If you can't trust perception, then why do you suppose that you can
> > trust your perception that you can't trust perception?
>
> That is a nice argument, but it shows that we cannot doubt  
> consciousness. We can still doubt all the content of consciousness,  
> except this one.
> This does not force us to start from that concept, except by accepting  
> its existence, and that it has to be explained. If a part remains not  
> explainable, then it would be nice to have a meta-explanation for  
> that. (and this happens with the logic of self-reference)
>
>
>
> > If you can't trust physics then how do you explain the fact that
> > physical entities (bullets, psychoactive molecules) affect
> > consciousness but not the other way around?
>
> Consciousness content, like fear, can modify the matter distribution  
> around. At a deeper level, we select the realities which support us  
> since a long time (deep computation).
>
>
>
> > If you trust both perception and physics
>
> But that is exactly what we should not trust too much, and especially  
> not take literally.
>
> > then all you have to do is
> > identify the relationship between them as the most likely aspect to be
> > distorted by both perception and physics, and the most defining of our
> > subjective condition as a particular subjective phenomenon.
>
> I think you are bringing some identity thesis, which might force you  
> to bring infinities in the picture to make it coherent. But You are  
> not precise enough to make it appears.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, perception can be tricked and exposed as a limited neurological
> > phenomenon, however under most circumstances, our perception somehow
> > seems to do quite an admirable job of passing on to us precise
> > meanings and high quality information from both straightforward
> > physical sources and more mysterious and creative psychological
> > sources. The integrity of that information, as it passes through
> > countless neurological transductions - from optical-sonic correlations
> > to gestalt memory associations, is what perception is; not just the
> > final neurological rattlings, it's the whole thing. Sense is
> > universal. Not human sense of course. Not physical sense, and not
> > psychological sense, but the sense period, common and uncommon, is the
> > thread that binds it all together. Whether it's the string of String
> > theory, or a strand of DNA, or a string of alphanumeric characters, a
> > conversation thread, etc. it's all about pattern and sense.
>
> > --
> > 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.

Reply via email to