Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
You could define this as primitive ontological entity, but honestly this has
nothing to do with what I call a primitive ontological entity. As I
understand a primitive ontological entity, it doesn't need to be assumed,
and even less explicitly. It is just there whether we assume it or not, and
this is what makes it primitive and ontological.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
In the sense above you may be right, but then I don't agree with this
definition.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
But the existence you speak of is not existence as such. It is just the
existence of a thing in a particular theory.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
But then to rely on some theories, we can just use our intuition to judge
whether they are reliable (or we talk us into some "rational" reason, that
is ultimately just as dependent on some intuition). So we are again at
square one.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
But what to use other than intuition? We can't base our faith on some
rational thing, as this would require faith as well.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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.
It is really so speculative? The more sophisticated our theories get, the
more they seem to point towards something beyond theories. COMP certainly
does that very powerfully.
That this will lead us to abandon theories as such seems to be just the
conclusion of that.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 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.
But this is a metaphor. No one in science says the brain is a theory. This
is just a category error.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>>
>> Maybe making formalized theories is just a transitory phenomenon, it  
>> may
>> ultimately be a dead end.
> 
> In that case, life is a dead end.
?
Life is not a formalized theory.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
True, not on the surface. Nevertheless we can, and have to, use optimism on
some level. Otherwise we can not even have faith that science makes sense at
all.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> It needs hard work, and can certainly  
> look boring. But that look is superficial.
In some sense yes, in some sense, no. It is only superficially less
interesting than other things we do with our minds like philosopy, poetry,
chitchatting. But it seems inherently more boring then eg transcendental
mystical states.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
To me consistency and inconsistency can coexist. Inconsistency just means
that our mind has no coherent understanding of something. 1=0 just appears
inconsistent because it doesn't fit with your internal representation of
natural numbers. Someone might just explain that he uses the symbols 0 and 1
interchangeably, and 2 means what you understand as 1, etc....



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
I don't see how this is a problem of arithmeitc. It just seems to be the
case empirically that many enlightened ones give up many of the things they
once considered important.

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32272739.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to