Hi Evgenii,

On 14 Aug 2011, at 21:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


Let me put it this way. I guess that a Lobian machine could be implemented, or it has been already implemented. So let us then take some Lobian machine and then you demonstrate practically that such a machine is conscious. Then it would much easier to understand what you mean.

I don't think we can demonstrate technically that anything is conscious. If someone did this for anything, he would have solve the mind body problem.

It is generally accepted that we cannot prove our own consciousness (we can know our own, here and now, but we cannot provide a proof for that). It is accepted that we cannot prove that something is conscious.

I often claim that consciousness is both not 1-doubtable and yet 3- incommunicable.

That is related to the fact that comp is a theology. It is a bet on a form of reincarnation.

If you accept this, I can explain how some "belief" a machine can develop by looking at herself, into a belief in a reality, or the possibility of a world, and this correspond, by Gödel completeness theorem (not INcompleteness) in a statement of self-consistency, which has indeed the property, for the ideally correct LUM, that it is true and unprovable. This means that consciousness, seen as a basic instinctive bet in a reality, already compared well with Löbian machine's self-consistency notion. Self-consistency is not identified with consciousness, though, but can be seen as a logical descendant of it.

But, if you can assume comp, if only for the sake of the argument, you can imagine what it means for a machine to be conscious. It means that you can survive with a digital brain and become a machine without you, nor your friend, noticing any change. That will be an example of a conscious machine.

I am not trying to prove that machine are conscious, or that we are machine. I just make the statement a bit more precise than usual, by using computer science and the substitution level, and I show that if we are machine, then Plato's conception of reality is far more plausible that Aristotle's one. In particular physics is derivable by machine's introspection, and this makes the comp theory testable.

UDA shows without math the reason why it has to be like that. This is understandable by anyone having a rough idea how a computer works at its most basic level.

AUDA shows with math how to derive concretely physics (but also other 'points of view' on the arithmetical reality).

I think it is better to be entirely convinced personally by UDA before studying AUDA. But logicians find AUDA a billionth times more easy, because it does no more refer, for them, to the mind-body problem (in which they are not usually interested, and which UDA illustrates the heart of the trickyness).

I hope this can help, and don't hesitate to ask any question, at any level suiting you the best,


On 14 Aug 2011, at 15:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


It well may be that you are right. The problem from my side is that
my knowledge of mathematics is not enough to understand you.

Mathematics is not well taught, and the case is worst for logic. It
is a pity.

For example

What do you mean? Some robot, running some program can be
conscious, like us (assuming mechanism).

I do not know what conscious means in this context.

It means conscious in the sense that you don't doubt that your are
conscious here and now. It means the usual sense. What I just said is
obvious, if I am a machine, there is at least one machine which is
conscious (indeed me).

It well might be that the meaning of conscious in your statement is
different from that in Jeffrey Gray's book.

I don't think so. He is aware of the hard problem, there is no reason
to attribute a different sense. What precise statement he said or I
said makes you believe we are not talking on the same thing.
Consciousness, like truth and time are easy first person notion, even
if we cannot define them.

It could be it is the same. I do not know, I do not understand what
a Lobian machine is. It is above my current knowledge, hence I
cannot comment on this.

In my view, to spread your knowledge it would be good to write a

There are already plenty excellent books. I wrote one of 700 pages
myself, I might publish it, or not. In english there are many
excellent book.

A Löbian machine is just a Universal machine (computer) extended with
the induction axioms (if it has proved P(0), and if it has proved
"for all n P(n) -> P(n+1)" then he can derive "for all n P(n)". It is
common knowledge in computer science/mathematical logic. Such machine
can prove, in some sense, that they are universal. It is the
threshold above which they get full and stable self-referential power
(you don't change their 'theology' by adding new beliefs to them).
They are characterized by a formula due to Löb, a deutch logician,
hence their name.

The UDA which shows that physics is a branch of machine's "theology"
(in a large sense of the term 'course) does not need the technical
part, except for a passive understanding of Church thesis, and
universal machine. UDA1-7 can be understood by 13 years old person,
by taking my words that a universal dovetailer exists (which is a
direct consequence of Church thesis), and it shows already that the
physical universe is little (has no running UD in it) or that physics
is a branch of computer science.

I might write a book one day. I am still trying to figure out what it
is that non scientists have a problem, besides a lack of knowledge in
computer science.

Have you understand the first half os sane04. It is a linear
reasoning so you can ask question for each steps. It is far more easy
that you perhaps imagine, unless you have no clue at all how a
computer works (but there are thousand of book which explains this,
and again, ask *any* question.

The step 8 is more difficult from the "philosophy of mind" points of
view. The subject is of course a bit tricky. But again, it is only a
metter of doing a bit of work, or to ask question.

The second part of sane04 (AUDA) needs much more knowledge of
computer science and mathematical logic. But it is standard
mainstreams notion explained in very good books, like Boolos 79,
Boolos and Jeffrey, or Mendelson. There is nothing controversial in
my results despite rumors due to a bunch of apparently influent
atheists (which are sick when they even just heard the term
"consciousness", or "mind"). But I have *never* met them. They are
not of the kind of accepting even to discuss the issue.

The amount of math you need to make sense of anything in physics is
the same as in "machine's psychology". You have just to do the study
or ask the question. UDA does not needs no more than what you need to
understand the plot in a novel like SIMULACRON III (Galouye), and
the math you need for AUDA is standard results generalizing Gödel's
discovery. I have just put the piece of the puzzle together.

Have you understand the first steps of the UDA? Have grasp the notion
of first person indeterminacy? I am just showing how to formulate the
mind body problem in math, once we assume that we are digitalizable
machine. And yes, the solution of the mind body problem which already
appears is the opposite of the current aristotelian paradigm (the
theology of most atheists and most christians). I hope your math
problem is not a pretext for hiding a dogmatic attitude on the
existence of some primary physical reality.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to