Dear "benjamin" if this is your name (benjayk?) if the unsigned text is yours, of course: I believe this post is not 'joining' the chorus of the debate. Or is it? Benjayk wrote: "*Consciousness is simply a given"* OK, if you just disclose ANYTHING about it as you formulate that 'given'. Your(?) logic seems alright that if it is 'originated' upon numbers then the * 'consciousness-based' *numbers are a consequence of a consequence (or prerequisite to a prerequisite). I am not decrying the 'origin' of consciousness, rather its entire concept - what it may contain, include, act with, by, for, result in, - or else we may not even know about today.. Then I may stipulate about an origin for it.
* ---"EXISTS?"---* as WHAT? I volunteered on many discussion lists a defining generalization:* response to relations, * (originally: *to information*, which turned out to be a loose cannon). In such general view it is not restricted to animates, in-animates, physical objects, ideas, or more, since the 'relations' are quite ubiquitous even beyond the limited circle of our knowledge. In such sense:* it exists*, indeed. Not (according to me) in *THOSE *systems, but everywhere. John M (PS please excuse me if I pond on open doors in a discussion the ~100 long posts of which I barely studied. I wanted to keep out and just could not control my mouse. JM) On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > Frankly I am a bit tired of this debate (to some extent debating in > general), > so I will not respond in detail any time soon (if at all). Don't take it as > total disinterest, I found our exchange very interesting, I am just not in > the mood at the moment to discuss complex topics at length. > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Then computer science provides a theory of consciousness, and explains > how > > consciousness emerges from numbers, > How can consciousness be shown to emerge from numbers when it is already > assumed at the start? > It's a bit like assuming A, and because B->A is true if A is true, we can > claim for any B that B is the reason that A true. > > Consciousness is simply a given. Every "explanation" of it will just > express > what it is and will not determine its origin, as its origin would need to > be > independent of it / prior to it, but could never be known to be prior to > it, > as this would already require consciousness. > > The only question is what systems are able to express that consciousness > exists, and what place consciousness has in those systems. > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> And in that sense, comp provides, I think, the first coherent > >>>>> picture of > >>>>> almost everything, from God (oops!) to qualia, quanta included, and > >>>>> this by assuming only seven arithmetical axioms. > >>>> I tend to agree. But it's coherent picture of everything includes > >>>> the > >>>> possibility of infinitely many more powerful theories. Theoretically > >>>> it may > >>>> be possible to represent every such theory with arithmetic - but > >>>> then we can > >>>> represent every arithmetical statement with just one symbol and an > >>>> encoding > >>>> scheme, still we wouldn't call "." a theory of everything. > >>>> So it's not THE theory of everything, but *a* theory of everything. > >>> > >>> Not really. Once you assume comp, the numbers (or equivalent) are > >>> enough, and very simple (despite mysterious). > >> They are enough, but they are not the only way to make a theory of > >> everything. As you say, we can use everything as powerful as > >> numbers, so > >> there is an infinity of different formulations of theories of > >> everything. > > > > For any theory, you have infinities of equivalent formulations. This > > is not a defect. What is amazing is that they can be very different > > (like cellular automata, LISP, addition+multiplication on natural > > numbers, quantum topology, billiard balls, etc. > I agree. It's just that in my view the fact that they can be very different > makes them ultimately different theories, only theories about the same > thing. Different theories may explain the same thing, but in practice, they > may vary in their efficiency to explain it, so it makes sense to treat them > as different theories. > In theory, even one symbol can represent every statement in any language, > but still it's not as powerful as the language it represents. > > Similarily if you use just natural numbers as a TOE, you won't be able to > directly express important concepts like dimensionality. > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32209984.html > Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
