On 13 Aug 2011, at 21:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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

That does not justify it. You just repeat it in a more complex way, with even more assumptions, and when you say "sort of like perceptual polarization by interference between multiple privacie", you are the 1004 wonderland. But I not saying you don't intuit something, because it does makes sense in AUDA, except for his reification of a concrete reality, at least if your answer, which does more use the term "physical" is supposed to answer my question.

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
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.

Organism are physical?
Are you assuming physicalism?

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.

That's follows from the comp hypothesis. In the sense that the first person is distributed on a non computable structure on which its bodies will rely. It is simpler to say that the mind is 3-Turing emulable, and that 3-matter is not. Well, at least this can be explained to anybody, when we assume that we can survive at some level of digital emulation.

The intersection of the overlap between the two topologies.

For a mathematician the term "topology" has precise technical meaning, making such sentence looking weird.

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,

replace "objects" by "south americans", and you will see your sentence already asserts by de Sepulveda for arguing that they have no soul comparable to ours.

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.

To make a mystery primitive is automatically an authoritative move. It is like saying "dont try to understand".
You are a guru, after all.
Too bad my job consists to kill all gurus.

You are no doing science, but promoting a personal opinion. It is problematic because it excludes entities from the club of conscious entities from appearances.

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

Agree for "anticipate", not for "achieved".

Also you confuse the mathematical reality, and the mathematical tools to explore that reality. It is as different as a finger pointing to the moon and the moon. I am not saying there is a mathematical reality, just that it is different from the mathematical theories.
I do believe in the arithmetical reality, to be precise.

It's a pattern with one side as quantitative sequential
sophistication and the other as qualitative simultaneous simplicity.

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

But what is the physical?

Physical is the tails side of the coin of awareness.

Not bad.

Awareness and
experience inside out. It's like your two universal machines except
that they are the same machine twisted into a Mobius strip,

Why not a Klein Bottle? A universal machine can emulate a pair of universal machine, without the need to twist itself. The doing of the mind lives in other sort of topologies. You tell me you don't do math, so each of your use of mathematical term are 1004 fallacies (to be over-precise with respect to what we try to understand).

itself through the mutual ignorance of objectification rather than
through mathematical correspondence - scrambled through the maximal

You begin to look like a program failing to succeed a Turing test.
I wrote generators of sentence like that in my youth.

and mystery to slow down the inevitable rush toward re-
singularity so that every part must fight to find it's place in the

Well if that is what "physical is", I will contend myself with 1g.

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.

Who us?

Our experiences may very well be mathematical to
the universe (which is a comp friendly thought, right?)

I cannot say. What to you mean by "mathematical to the universe"?

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.

Sure. But this can only be true in case comp is not just false, but refuted.

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

But this has nothing to do with the weak comp thesis I used as tools. It means that you put the comp level low. For, without evidence, nothing prevent the biochemical law to be Turing emulable. So with comp, you can survive with a silicon-laser super computer simulating your brain at the level of the basic quantum field. You can some of joint and you will have the effect of the tobacco and marijuana in the brain.

I am with you on this. I have evidences that pour level might be exactly the classical electron level at the Heisenberg uncertainties. IF QM is a consequence of DM as it seems, and should be assuming comp in the cognitive/theological science, THEN the Heisenberg uncertainties might be the whole from which we get the trace of the "other computations, by other universal machines" takes it places. Neurons, like amoebas, are probably less dumbs than most humans would thought.

cannot be anticipated from the math alone,


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

If the equation describe a Turing universal numbers running relatively to another universal number, as many equations in physics can do (even just the one describing the open billiard ball) what you say is just, again, an affirmation that comp is false.

It is not the equation which feels something, it is the being appearing in the solution of the equation who makes the thinking. This is true even for physicalist, nor just for number theorist or computer scientists.

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 might agree. All my point is that if COMP is TRUE, then PHYSICS is a branch of number theology. I define, roughly, the theology of a number by all what is true about that number, and I define the science of the number by all what that number can prove. Incompleteness then associated a theology to each number, and the self- referentially correct numbers share all the same abstract theology (but different from inside). But the fundamental laws are the same for all, and they contain and justify the way the physical laws appear and get stable in some first person plural point of views.

We can't take the mathematical
modeling of the visible electromagnetic spectrum to make concrete an
expectation of the color of gamma rays.

We can make that, by using that mathematical modelling and interface it to a mathematical modelling done at the right substitution level of a human brain, and then using the mathematical modelling of the vocal cords to translate and hear a guy saying "oh! yes, I distinctively see something". But here you will say that the guy is just a zombie, where the correct computationalist will say that the experience itself is in Platonia, and the modeling being done by the equation's solution or by the physical universe just changes probabilities of the relative manifestation of that consciousness.

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.

How could you know that? You talk like if you knew the arithmetical reality.

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.

Again de Sepulveda. It's not me which is "indian" racist, it is Jesus itself for excluding the Indians for the truth.

So yes. The carbon did have some advantage in the molecular evolution of universal beings, but now we see that, perhaps thanks to the human, the silicon can also drive universal beings, and you just say "no" because, by definition, they don't have carbon.

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

You can derive from QM why carbon was advantage in the wet environment of the planet. You can derive the existence of the carbon of symmetries and stars, you can derive stars from gas and gravitation. Physics can derive a lot, and physics itself (that the old news) is derivable from addition and multiplication, and this by given both the qualia and the quanta and a justification why they look different.

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,

OK. With comp, we can said that matter is somehow the border of the universal mind, where God loses control, somehow.

but it needs that tangible
incongruity to manifest as stuffy.

No. It don't. I mean we don't have to postulate it, the tangible incongruity is just logically unavoidable for the universal number looking at themselves (which they do by Turing-universality virtue of number relations).

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.

You feel superior?

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.

OK, but to save your point of view you have to put the substitution infinitely low, postulate matter, postulate mind, and postulate some twist, and all this for not baptizing the machine. All this for making us feeling different if not superior. I don't buy that.



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