On 15 Jul 2011, at 17:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Could you define "perpendicular topologies"? You say you don't study
math, so why use mathematical terms (which seems non sensical for a
mathematicians, unless you do a notion of set of topologies with some
scalar products, but then you should give it.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I mean it literally or figuratively. Maybe
better to say a pseudo-dualistic, involuted topological continuum?
Stephen was filling me in on some of the terminology. I'm looking at a
continuum of processes which range from discrete, [dense, public,
exterior, generic, a-signifying, literal...at the extreme would be
local existential stasis, fixed values, occidentialism (Only Material
Matter Matters)] to the compact [diffuse, private, interior,
proprietary, signifying, figurative...at the extreme would be non
local essential exstasis, orientalism (Anything Can Mean Everything)].
They are perpendicular because it's not as if there is a one to one
correspondence between each neuron and a single feeling, feelings are
chords of entangled sensorimotive events which extend well beyond the
nervous system.

Since the duality is polarized in every possible way, I want to make
it clear that to us, they appear perfectly opposite in their nature,
so I say perpendicular. Topology because it's a continuum with an XY
axis (Y being quantitative magnitude of literal scale on the
occidental side; size/scale, density, distance, and qualitative
magnitude on the oriental side; greatness/significance, intensity,
self-referentiality...these aren't an exhaustive list, I'm just
throwing out adjectives.). I'm not averse to studying the concepts of
mathematics, I'm just limited in how I can make sense of them and how
much I want to use them. I'm after more of an F=ma nugget of
simplicity than a fully explicated field equation. I want the most
elementary possible conception of what the cosmos seems to be.

What do you mean by interior of electromagnetism.

The subjective correlate of all phenomena which we consider
electromagnetic. It could be more of an ontological interiority -
throughput.. I'm saying that energy is a flow of experiences contained
by the void of energy - and energy, all energy is change or difference
in what is sensed or intended. Negentropy. If there is no change in
what something experiences, there is no time. So it makes sense that
what we observe in the brain as being alterable with electromagnetism
translates as changes in sensorimotor experience.

Quantum Mechanics is a misinterpretation of atomic quorum sensing.
This seems like non sense.

Didn't mean to be inflammatory there. What I mean to say is that the
popular layman's understanding of QM as how the microcosm works - the
Standard Model of literal particles in a vacuum with strange
behaviors, is inside out. What we are actually detecting is
particulate moods of sensorimotive events shared by our measuring
equipment (including ourselves) and the thing that we think is being
measured.

Time, space, and gravity are void. Their effects are explained by
perceptual relativity and sensorimotor electromagnetism.

?

Time is just the dialectic of change and the cumulative density of
it's own change residue carried forward. Space is just the
singularity's way of dividing itself existentially. If you have a
universe of one object, there is no space. Space is only the relation
of objects to each other. No relation, no space. Perceptual relativity
is meta-coherence, how multiple levels and scales of sensorimotor
electromagnetic patterns are recapitulated (again cumulative
entanglement...retention of pattern through iconicized
representation).

The "speed of light" c is not a speed it's a condition of
nonlocality or absolute velocity, representing a third state of
physical relation as the opposite of both stillness and motion.

?
Stillness is a state which appears unchanging from the outside, and
from the inside the universe is changing infinitely fast. Motion is
the state of change relative to other phenomena, the faster you move
the more time slows down for you relative to other index phenomena. c
is the state of absolute change - being change+non change itself so
that it appears non-local from the outside, ubiquitous and absent, and
from the inside the cosmos is still.

Any better?

No it is worst, I'm afraid. I hope you don't mind when I am being frank. In fundamental matter, you have to explain things from scratch. Nothing can be taken for granted, and you have to put your assumptions on the table, so that we avoid oblique comments and vocabulary dispersion. You say yourself that you don't know if you talk literally or figuratively. That's says it all, I think. You should make a choice, and work from there. Personally, I am a literalist, that is I am applying the scientific method. That is, for the mind-body problem, actually the hard part for scientist, consists in understanding that once we assume the comp hyp, we can translate "philosophical problems" into "mathematical and/or physical problems". Philosophers don't like that (especially continental one), but this fits with their usual tradition of defending academic territories and position (food). It is natural, like in (pseudo)-religion, they are not very happy when people use the scientific methods to invade their fields of study. But this means that, in interdisciplinary research, you must be able to be understood by a majority in each field you are crossing. Even when you are successful on this, you will have to find the people having the courage to study the connection between the domains. A lot of scientists still believe that notion like mind, consciousness, are crackpot notion, and when sincere people try to discuss on those notions, you can be amazed by the tons of difficulties. I have nothing against some attempts toward a materialist solution of the MB P., and in that case at least we know (or should know, or refute ...) that we have to abandon even extremally weak version of mechanism. But then, this looks like introducing special (and unknown) infinities in the MB puzzle, so I am not interested, without providing some key motivation.

In this list people are open minded for the "everything exists" type of theories, like Everett Many-Worlds, with an open mind on computationalism (Schmidhuber) and mathematicalism or immaterialism (Tegmark). So my own contribution was well suited, given that I propose an argument showing that if we believe that we can survive with a digitalizable body, then we dispose, ONLY, of a, yet, very solid constructive, and highly complex structured, version of an "everything": all computations, (in the precise arithmetical sense of sigma_1 arithmetical relations, and their (coded) proofs. I show also that we dispose of a very natural notion of observers, the universal machines, and that among them we can already "interview" those which can prove, know, guess, feel about their internal views on realities.

Everett's move to embed the physicist subject *in* the object matter of the physical equation (SWE) extends itself in the arithmetical realm, with the embedding of the mathematician *in* arithmetic, once we take the possibility of our local digitalization seriously enough into consideration.

This shows mainly that, with comp, the mind-body problem is two times more complex than what people usually think. Not only we have to explain qualia/consciousness from the number, but we have to explain quanta/matter from the numbers too.

But universal machine have a natural theory of thought (the laws of Boole), and a natural theory of mind (the Gödel-Löb-Solovay logics of self-reference), and by the very existence of computer science, in fine, you get a translation of the body problem in computer science, which makes it automatically a problem in number theory.

Bruno



On Jul 15, 4:39 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2011, at 14:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:

I don't want to talk about inner experience. I want to talk about my
fundamental reordering of the cosmos, which if it were correct,
would be staggeringly important and I have not seen anywhere else:
Mind and body are not merely separate, but perpendicular topologies
of the same ontological continuum of sense.

Could you define "perpendicular topologies"? You say you don't study
math, so why use mathematical terms (which seems non sensical for a
mathematicians, unless you do a notion of set of topologies with some
scalar products, but then you should give it.

The interior of electromagnetism is sensorimotive, the interior of
determinism is free will, and the interior of general relativity is
perception.

What do you mean by interior of electromagnetism.

Quantum Mechanics is a misinterpretation of atomic quorum sensing.

This seems like non sense.

Time, space, and gravity are void. Their effects are explained by
perceptual relativity and sensorimotor electromagnetism.

?

The "speed of light" c is not a speed it's a condition of
nonlocality or absolute velocity, representing a third state of
physical relation as the opposite of both stillness and motion.

?

It's not about meticulous logical deduction, it's about grasping the
largest, broadest description of the cosmos possible which doesn't
leave anything out. I just want to see if this map flies, and if
not, why not?

Anyway, you seem to presuppose some physicalness, and so by the UDA
reasoning, you need a physics and a cognitive science with (very
special) infinities. This seems to make the mind body problem (MB),
and its formulation, artificially more complex, without motivation.
Without an attempt to make things clearer I can hardly add anything.
Perhaps understanding the MB problem in the comp context might help
you to formulate it in some non-comp context.

Bruno

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