On 01 Aug 2011, at 21:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 1, 2:08 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
That's correct (in the comp theory). It is a very complex lattice,
once you say "yes" to the doctor, it can be described as a number.
What if you say yes to the doctor, and then realize that you've made a
terrible mistake later on?
lattice becomes more complex, if you weaken the comp hypothesis, and
allow extension in the reals. But in the reals, there is no
of Church thesis, and it looks like you can prove everything, which I
take as a defect of the theories based on the reals.
It's punctuated by
qualitative paradigmatic leaps of synergy. Thus the big deal between
an organism being alive or not.
If only you could give evidences for making the theory so complex at
the start. Consciousness is no evidence for that.
A cell is a synergistic leap above the molecules that it's made of. An
organism is a leap above cells.
The entropy cost is not uniform, just
as the different hues in the visible spectrum seem to appear to us
qualitative regions of color despite the uniform arithmetic of
frequency on the band. Let's say that human consciousness spans the
spectrum from red (sensation) to violet (abstract thought) with
phenomena such as emotion, ego, etc in the orange-yellow-green
think that a computer chip is like taking something which is pre-
sensation (silicon detection = infra-red) and reverse engineering
around the back of the spectrum to ultra-violet: abstraction without
thought. If we want to go further backward into our visible spectrum
from the end, I think we would have to push forward more from the
beginning. You need something more sensitive than stone
to get into the visible red wavelengths in order to have the 1p
experience get into the violet level of actual thought. Or maybe
wouldn't work and you would have to build through each level from
bottom (red) up.
I believe that babbage machine, if terminated, can run a program
capable to see a larger spectrum than us.
Why do you, or why should I believe that though?
Well, it is a consequence of digital mechanism, alias computationalism.
Infinities and non Turing
emulability does not need to be added, there are enough of these in
the arithmetical realm, as viewed from inside.
Don't really understand. Are we on a non Turing-completeness diet?
don't get the difference it makes whether we add to it or not, or why
you say my view adds to it.
We explain, or try to explain, the complex (matter, mind, gods and
goddesses, and all that) from the simple principles on which many
agree, like addition and multiplication.
I will explain step by step the UDA on another forum. If you are
willing to assume comp, if only for the sake of the hypothesis, you
can understand the theoretical point. Not now because I am busy (well
I work so well today that I sacrifice at my every-thing list
If front of complex questions, I think it is better to start with
"simple hypothesis" and to add axioms only if strictly needed.
Especially that today, we know how "simple things" can lead to very
high complexity and very sophisticated views on that complexity.
I don't approach questions in terms of syntactic architecture. I'm
starting with nothing and adding only what appears to be necessary to
understanding the cosmos without leaving out anything important (like
life, consciousness, subjectivity).
I have no doubt you try to understand something, but you seems to have
no idea of what is a scientific approach, to be frank.
We always try to assume the less, derive things, and compare with data.
What I say, in a nutshell, is what all mystics say: that the cosmos is
in your head. UDA explains that comp leads to a sort of equivalent,
and the Arithmetical UDA, takes this literally and show how to extract
physics by looking in the head of a universal machine. We can extract
physics, but not particular geography, nor particular history. But we
can extract both the qualia and the quanta in this approach, for the
inhabitants and heros of the geographies/histories. On some question
the machine will remain silent, but later on, can justify by itself
her silence, sometimes using some hypothesis herself.
From what I (hardly) understand of your approach, you bury the Mind-
Body problem in an infinitely low substitution level. At least you
acknowledge that you have to say "no" to the doctor, and that *is*
your right. beware the crazy doctor (pro-life like) who might not ask
for your opinion.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at