On 15 Aug 2011, at 20:50, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on
consciousness
is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean
it's
independent of it, or prior to it.
I would say of course, except that "independent" and 'prior" are a
bit
fuzzy.
I can only to invite you to be skeptic of this "of course". For me
it isn't
obvious at all.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the fact that it derived from numbers
within the theory still doesn't mean that it is in actuality the
reason for
it.
Logically you are right. But remember the invisible horses.
From a scientific standpoint this remark makes sense. But I believe
this
point is beyond science. From my intuition the simple difference is
that
invisible horses are not primary or necessary and consciousness is.
Necessary with logic and numbers: yes.
Necessary as a primitive ontological entity? I am not sure.
It depends on what we mean with primitive ontological entity.
What we assume to exist (or to make sense) explicitly when we build a
theory.
For me it is
just so integral to everything that I can't see how calling it
primitive
could be wrong.
Both matter and consciousness have that feature, but this means that
they are fundamental, not that they are primitive.
It's a bit like saying that existence isn't primitive. What
would that even mean? Deriving the existence of existence, or
consciousness
seems quite meaningless to me.
Existence can be handled by simple rule (like deducing ExP(x) from
P(m) for some m).
Consciousness has no similar rules.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But obviously I can't prove that it isn't. I am just stating a
(strong)
intuition. I guess there is no point argueing over that.
Especially that the comp theory, + the classical theory of
knowledge,
suggests clearly that machine's intuition will conflict with the
correct self-referentially provable, and true, propositions.
This may be a strong point against COMP.
Why? On the contrary, it mirrors the emergence of a mind-body problem
in the discourse of the universal numbers.
Once I say "yes" to the doctor, I lost the option of taking those
discourses as zombies one.
The problem is that we rely on our intuition to say yes
We can't. We have to rely on some theories, which are always
hypothetical. It is not different than taking a plane.
and then have a
theory that calls our intuition heavily into question, so that from
the
theory itself it makes sense to reject it.
On the contrary, the theory explains why the intuition is misleading
fro that kind of operation. Evolution did not prepare our brains for
the technological speeding up.
It might be that all good theories about reality as a whole show
that it
makes sense to reject them, as they are always incomplete, and if
they are
good they will reflect that.
In the limit this could lead us to reject theories as such, in
accordance
with what they say!
Who knows. But that is a speculation, and it would be unwise to reject
a theory by speculating that the theories in the future will say so.
Again, it is also very different from the divine and terrestrial
points of view. A brain, or even a cells can be considered as a
machine, or a word, or a theory. We are divine hypothesis.
Maybe making formalized theories is just a transitory phenomenon, it
may
ultimately be a dead end.
In that case, life is a dead end.
The mind showing itself its own limits, even, to
some extent, proving its own limits (like Gödel did).
Gödel, and all arithmetical sound machines. As Gödel saw too.
Quite a powerful way
of showing the reality and necessity of transcendence.
I agree.
Speculatively, once humanity becomes enlightened, science and
mathematics
may become less important, and may ultimately be superseded by more
direct
and involving ways of knowing (but it is definitely extremely
important to
integrate the many useful aspects and insights of them).
Personally I think that theoretical reasoning is inherently boring
(notwithstanding the fact that it can be interesting for quite a
while), so
I certainly would like it to be this way.
Science is not wishful thinking. It needs hard work, and can certainly
look boring. But that look is superficial.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
So the needle falling in the forest not only does not make any
noise,
but it makes also no vibrations in the air? I doubt it.
It makes a noise, and it makes vibrations. We are just not very
aware of it.
It is part of our sub-conscious.
Hmm... then all arithmetical truth is part of our subconscious I'm
afraid.
Is that bad? Why not? Indeed I would say all mathematicians do is
bringing
things from their subconscious into their awareness in a formal
form.
No problem. It makes the physical universe the observable border of
the subconscious, which may seems a bit stretched.
OK, depends on your perspective. I think what you said is a really
good
formulation of how it is!
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...I don't think the vatican would like me proclaiming that WE are
all God,
though. :D
They will burn you, but in some century they will sanctify you, and
of
course censor the discovery.
It can make sense when you see how far some are able to
misunderstand
the statement.
In comp you are true, and all machine can discover that, but if
assert, or even if taken as an axiom, it transform itself into
bewesibar ('0 = 1") which is the arithmetical version of BS.
Hm, I don't see why it shouldn't be taken as an axiom.
Because you will become inconsistent.
So? We need formal consistency only in math, apart from math
inconsistencies
are abundant, and acceptable. Even in science. General relativity and
quantum mechanics are quite inconsistent with each other!
We need consistency if only to have a reality to look for.
Inconsistency makes people saying about anything. It is very easy, but
boring and unproductive, and eventually it leads to suffering. In fact
suffering is the reaction of the soul in front of threat of
inconsistency.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
That it is
paradoxically may be acceptable, if we accept that on some level
reality is
paradoxical.
It is true but not communicable. That is paradoxical, but noneless
true and non contradictory.
Yes. The problem is, if the ultimate truth is incommunicable, but
also is
all that is, we can't communicate about anything.
Who said that the ultimate truth is incommunicable. Only partial
feature of it might be, like consciousness.
Also, something can be incommunicable, yet allows many things to be
still communicated.
So, if we choose to
communicate, we really only can communicate about the incommunicable.
Sure. That's the point. machines themselves can communicate that IF
she is consistent, then she cannot communicate it rationally. I guess
that is where poetry and art comes from, attempt to communicate the
non communicable, notably by making it relived in us, in some ways.
The
incommunicable is just ultimately incommunicable, it can be pointed
to,
symbolized, metaphorized - and this may help to see the truth of
that which
is uncommunicable.
There are many different type of non communicability. Machines can
communicate that if they are consistent, or if there is a reality,
they cannot communicate it (prove it), but about knowledge and truth,
they cannot even define them, and have to use metaphor, or theories.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is extreme relativism which leads to instrumentalism.
Fundamental
science is driven by the search of knowledge. To say yes to the
doctor
cannot be just a useful story. Either you die through it, or you
survive. That *can* make a difference.
I guess I am to near to a transpersonal view to accept this. It
doesn't
ultimately really matter whether I die or survive.
The irony of comp: once a machine has the cognitive ability to
understand that she can survive through a digital functional
substitution, then she has the ability to understand that she will
survive no matter what.
But then she understands that the real goal is not surviving, the
real
goal is making high the probability of seeing the near soccer cup
nearby. For which an artificial brain can be handy. Of course it
is a
little ego affair, like life, dreams and realities.
OK, this makes sense. But I don't think what you mentioned as ego
affairs
are ego affairs. They are just ego affairs through the lens of ego.
God
seems to be very much interested in life, dreams and realities,
after all
this is what pretty much all of his experience revolves around!
I am not sure about that. I don't know.
It doesn't seem like the answer to this is knowable in an intellectual
sense. We can just trust that our love of (or at least interest in)
life,
dreams and reality is in accordance with God.
OK.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
(as long as you promise to not abandon your
responsibilities) :D.
Ah Ah! The key point!
But really I believe it comes naturally with awakening. God is happy
to take
on whatever responsibilities he presents himself with. Just ego has
problems
with it, understandably. The ego can't understand why and how, and
suffers
from the problems that go with responsibilites, etc...
Wanting to abandon responsibilities and feeling to have to take on
responsibilities may both be forms of ego.
Not sure. In buddhism, in Chan and Zen, they describe often the
awakening as the penultimate spiritual stage. The last stage is the
coming back "in the village", which seems to be the hardest task for
many.
OK. It's really delicate. It can be both ways. Enlightenment also
means the
realizations that responsibility is relative, and that in some sense
nothing
needs to be done, or can be done (as everything is doing what it does
already automatically).
Let us pray the firefighters don't get enlightened!
But I think once we see the sense in taking on
responsibilities, we become more efficient at it, and see more
deeply what
is really important.
Perhaps. The term 'enlightenment' is of the type 'truth', or 'god',
etc. The use of the term betrays the intended meaning.
We also may abandon things that the ego felt deeply
responsible for, though.
I am not sure of that. The least I can say is that it is an open
problem in comp, and in arithmetic.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
