On 16 Aug 2011, at 17:27, benjayk wrote:



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.

You confuse a theory and its (intended) model (or subject matter).

This is a widespread confusion, and that is related to the fact that physicists use "model" where logicians use "theory".






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.

Let us use primitive in my sense, to fix the idea, and let us use "fundamental" for your sense. Those are the sense used in this list for awhile, and it would be confusing to change suddenly the terming.





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.

That is always the case when we do science. (3-discourse).
It is also the case for the 1-discourse with the (notable) exception of consciousness, and with the fact that the theories, behind most 1p experiences, are not made in a conscious way.




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.

Not really. The intuition needed to understand a theory is equal to the intuition needs to understand the natural numbers. Not a lot. Then the theory, if precise enough, is refutable, and that is all we can hope for. (Yes, a scientist is *happy* when someone is kind enough to show him/her wrong).





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.

Science is based on some faith in some reality and in some rationality.




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.

That is an argument against science is general. Sometimes we can be true, even if we cannot know that for sure. Science is a risky enterprise. You seem to look for a certainty, which makes you abandon theories before they are refuted. That is like an extreme precaution principle. Let us put innocent people in jail, because they might be criminal.

Of course it is your right for not appreciating a theory (for personal reason). I can hardly change the taste.

What can make me a bit nervous is when people believes that comp is false, based on invalid reasoning, or prejudice against some idea.

I have no clue why you could have any problem with comp, given that 1) you have admitted not having study the theory, 2) you seem to have no problem with its main consequences (that physics is secondary to consciousness, non materialism, soul immortality, coming back to Plato and the mystics, etc.).





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.

No. It is a theory, written in the language of chemistry, which is itself written in the language of quantum mechanics, which is itself written in the language of machine's theology (assuming comp). It is not a metaphor at all, but a bet on some 3-self-finitude (which leads to some 1-self-infinitude).





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.

The 'life of consciousness' is not, but the life of a body is, unless you have an evidence of concrete special infinities.





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.

Making sense is perhaps related to the Löb formula, which incarnates a sort of placebo effect. I say two words on this in the second part of the




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.

I can agree with this, but transcendental mystical states, although they can inspire and even drive research, they cannot be used in the communication of theories, and cannot make us forget what theories are and how useful they are in the deployment of life, which, is also a creative theory building process.





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....

If someone says that 0 = 1, and later makes clear he is not talking on the natural numbers 0 and 1, then he was consistent, and we were just not talking on the same subject. It was not inconsistency, but just a vocabulary problem.





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.

That does not mean they abandon their responsibility. It means only that they lived a change of perspective, and might make change in the spectrum of what they did consider as important.

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.

Reply via email to