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?
"*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*,
Not (according to me) in *THOSE *systems, but everywhere.
(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
> 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
> > 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
> what it is and will not determine its origin, as its origin would need to
> independent of it / prior to it, but could never be known to be prior to
> 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:
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at