On Aug 13, 1:39 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2011, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> > The further our imaginary reality is from our own
> > PRIF, the less likely that it could reflect the concrete experiences
> > that would occur there if that reality were manifested physically.
> How would you justify that?

Because the interior of the PRIF is private, and the more
morphologically different the target PRIF is, the smaller the
bandwidth we have to describe it in our own PRIF's terms. It's signal
attenuation by the density of aggregate semantic mismatch, sort of
like perceptual polarization by interference between multiple

> >> What can be shown is that each of two universal machines put in front
> >> of each other can develop a true and incommunicable belief in a
> >> reality. I think that's consciousness. It is an instinctive belief in
> >> a reality. Self-consciousness is that same belief but with a belief
> >> in
> >> a separation between the believer and the believed.
> > I think it depends on what the machines actually are physically as to
> > what they will be able to believe or develop.
> What do you mean by "physically"?

What kind of materials they are physically composed of. Metal, cells,
organisms, etc.

> > If you execute the
> > machine in silicon, you're going to have a polite glass sculpture of
> > belief, not a fierce, viscerally passionate belief.
> So mind is something physical and non Turing emulable.

It's both non Turing emulable physical and Turing emulable logical.
The intersection of the overlap between the two topologies.

>But we don't
> know anything physical which is not either Turing emulable, or
> recovered by self-indetermination (like in quantum superposition). So,
> to solve a problem, you are introducing more mystery than there is
> already. I don't see how this can solve anything. In french we call
> that a "fuite en avant" (forward-escape).

It's not the topology of the physical objects which we can encounter
externally which is non Turing emulable, it's the private interior
which we can only guess at through out own imagination. It's not a
cypher though, it's just metaphorical. Objects cannot tell us what
they mean, but through our understanding of what they mean to us,
personally and collectively, we can get a reading through the
alchemical prism that may partially correlate to external emulables.
It's not necessary to solve the mystery but to acknowledge that
mystery is a legitimate primitive phenomena of the cosmos.

> > The math alone can
> > create a correspondence as-if it were true, but only the physics
> With the comp theory, physics is an emerging pattern in the mind of
> numbers. A good thing, because I don't take physics for granted, at
> least not in a primitively grounded way.

It can still be an emerging pattern in the mind, but the experience of
it goes beyond what could be achieved or anticipated through pure
mathematics. It's a pattern with one side as quantitative sequential
sophistication and the other as qualitative simultaneous simplicity.

> > can
> > create the conditions of true through experience in spite of logic,
> > which is what gives the believer not only separation but something of
> > a trump-card privilege over the believed.
> I can follow you, but it makes both mind and matter rather magical.

It's not magical but it explains the existence of the feeling of, or
desire for magical. It's the potential of teleology to actualize
itself, defined by and in contradistinction to, the inertial of
teleonomy to limit teleological actualization.

> > In a contest of math v
> > physics, I think the physical can generate novelties in advance of
> > math,
> But what is the physical?

Physical is the tails side of the coin of awareness. Awareness and
experience inside out. It's like your two universal machines except
that they are the same machine twisted into a Mobius strip, meeting
itself through the mutual ignorance of objectification rather than
through mathematical correspondence - scrambled through the maximal
decoherence and mystery to slow down the inevitable rush toward re-
singularity so that every part must fight to find it's place in the

> > so that the arithmetic is an analytical afterthought.
> How to explain that the physical obeys to the arithmetical? How will
> you explain the role of math in physics?

Our perception obeys mathematical laws when it examines physical
external phenomena. That is how physical objects are rendered as
separate from hallucinations which are dynamic, fluid, self
referential, metaphorical, and non-mathematical. Physics is
mathematical...to us. Our experiences may very well be mathematical to
the universe (which is a comp friendly thought, right?) but to try to
execute our own mathematical sense as if it were universally
mathematical I think fails because we are missing the perspectives
outside of our minds. We need help from the work that has already been
done by our cells and genes to prop up a true artificial
consciousness, or else settle for the more useful option of developing
an unconscious but highly sophisticated intelliform machine in

> > Physics
> > cannot be anticipated from the math alone,
> Why?

Because no equation feels like a supernova or smells like bacon.

> I can understand that is true for geography, but why to assert this
> for physics? What is physics?

I'm using physics here as distinct from math in the sense of relating
to physical bodies themselves rather than our understanding of the
principles governing physical bodies. Once we observe the body, it's
motion and changes, we can abstract an arithmetic description, but it
doesn't work the other way around. We can't take the mathematical
modeling of the visible electromagnetic spectrum to make concrete an
expectation of the color of gamma rays.

> > it can only be reverse
> > engineered from factual physical observations.
> But what is that?

Intersubjective sensorimotive experiences. Synchronized perceptions
which extend to the secondhand 'perceptions' of objects relating to
other objects. Measurement.

> > Math can of course be
> > used to build on physics as well (nuclear fission, etc) but it still
> > requires a priori indexes of atomic behaviors which are independent
> > from pure arithmetic.
> Why? I mean, even if comp is false, why would we a priori reject an
> explanation, if the goal was not for justifying that sort of silicon
> racism. It seems to me that you make matter, mind, the relation
> between awfully mysterious just to justify a segregation among
> possible entities for personhood.

I'm just saying that like the color of gamma rays, math would never
have been able to conceive of the properties of atoms were it not for
having those properties already available for justification. It's not
me that's silicon racist, it's the universe for excluding it and the
other inorganic atoms from participating in cellular elaboration.
There's no reason why it couldn't have been silicon instead of carbon
from a mathematical perspective, because math could not predict
cellular elaboration in the first place without being able to reverse
engineer it from the a posteriori knowledge and existence of living

> At least you are coherent, you seems to need stuffy matter, like the
> EM field, then mechanism cannot make sense, unless I am wrong
> somewhere 'course.

Matter is just the rear end of mind, but it needs that tangible
incongruity to manifest as stuffy. If it's all done on the single
topology of a chip, the stuffy dimension is too thin to accommodate
the bandwidth of post-biological qualia. It's only pretending to
matter, and that difference, insignificant on a microelectronic scale
makes for an exponentially greater difference when scaled up to the
level of a massively sophisticated machine. An organism is organized,
but an organization by itself is not automatically an organism.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to