On Aug 14, 1:30 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2011, at 16:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> > How does logic become feeling?
> Logic cannot. You need logic + a universal machine. For example logic  
> + addition and multiplication of integers.

How is the addition and multiplication of integers different from
logic and why would it become feeling?

> feeling comes from the true but incommunicable propositions that  
> numbers or machine get by looking at themselves (in the standrd way  
> discovered by Gödel for formal theories).

Why should there be any such thing, logically?

> > I can see something that feels being
> > able to associate numbers with feeling, but I can't realistically
> > imagine something like a mousetrap being able to feel just by using
> > logic.
> Why not (with logic + numbers). It means that you put in the mousetrap  
> something non Turing emulable.

No, it just means that I acknowledge the commonsense observation that
a mousetrap feel like a mousetrap or know that it's a mousetrap. It's
just wood and metal. Only a mousetrap to us.

>Nobody has even found a process in  
> nature which is not either Turing emulable, or due to self-
> multiplication.

Awareness is a process like that. It's both in nature and not in

> So your assumption just seem gratuitous.

My observation seems undeniably obvious to me.

> > How does complex math become simple sense, and why should it
> > have to?
> To smell coffee is simple, yet you need quite a number of very complex  
> molecular and cellular happenings to live it.

To smell coffee involves an entirely different set of happenings than
remembering the smell of coffee, or thinking of the idea of the smell
of coffee, yet they all have a simple common semantic connection. The
meaning is isomorphic on some essential level. Why should that level
exist in a world that can be completely reduced to complex math? Why
the fake simplicity? For whose benefit?

> >> I think few people realize the impact of the discovery of the
> >> universal machine (or if you prefer the discovery of the Post Church
> >> Kleene Turing Markov thesis).
> > Can you summarize what that impact is?
> The birth of computers and computers science. The computer, the  
> internet, Hubble, the iphone, up to the discovery that Aristotelian  
> theology got a rational Platonist competitor.

But what does that have to do with solving the Hard Problem? I'm a fan
of high technology too, but there has been a cost to human
civilization as well. A lot of cultural diversity and richness is
being eroded in favor of generic corporatism. Quantitative theory has
eclipsed quality-centered values in all sectors of business and
politics, with catastrophic consequences to individuals.

> It is the first discovery of a concrete effective universal notion,  
> and the discovery of its unavoidable limitations. And the discovery  
> that it can be aware of that limitation and transcend it in a non  
> predictable way. almost the discovery of a truly new unknown, which  
> might forces us to learn a bit of modesty.

Does non-predictable mean sentient though?


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