On 21 Aug 2011, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Aug 20, 12:16 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Thanks for explaining. It's interesting but I am more looking at
taking the Cartesian approach further, so that rather than reducing
experience to gated logics and assuming that it is primitive, the
approach that leads to an understanding of awareness is one that seeks
to question all forms of patter recognition.

The theory of knowledge above is not comp dependent. Indeed it has
been used by many to refute comp. But then incompleteness makes the
Theatetical definition of knowledge working for machine, and refuting
those refutations.

it seems more truthful to admit that the fundamentals of experience -
our own experience of life in fact, tends to begin and end in an
irrational twilight rather than 1+2=3 opinions.


Both extremes have
significance, but I don't think that one is more primitive.

At the epistemological level, but for a theory it is better to start
from what we understand, or at least agree. If not people stop reading
your contribution. Well, even if rational they can stop, in this
field. It touches taboo, and if you are not clear, you will attract
wishful thinking people only (which can help for money, but nor for
genuine progress).

That's the hard part about a massive paradigm shift. It doesn't come
around more than once in many lifetimes. We have no first hand
experience with what it's like so we imagine that it's some far off
thing in the past which we have long outgrown, and that surely our
most settled points of science are beyond questioning.

It would be great to have this theory bridge to our previous
worldview, but I'm not personally qualified to do that. If I can't
find anyone interested in it who would be qualified, then eventually I
might try to do it myself, but really it's better if someone like a
modern day Feynman would translate it themselves.

Geometrically ordered molecular relations from amorphous mineral
deposits, which in turn are re-informed through air and water to
become geometrically ordered transparent crystals.

so, I'm saying that the universe is more than what is true,

It is more than that what can be smelled, felt, observed, proved,
inferred, prayed, ... OK. But more than what is true? I am not
sure I
can see what that means.

Fiction. Metaphor. The universe is what might be, and it is the
to be what it is not.

That is part of the truth.

Your position seems to place the particular fiction of materiality
outside of truth?

Yes. I know that this is curious, but matter is outside truth, even
outside being. This is really a consequence of comp, but it is shared by Plotinus. In a sense in Plotinus, God and Matter don't exist. They
are outside the realm of the relative beings, which belongs to the
Noùs, the realm of the (divine) intellect. God exists, to be sure,
matter too, but they are transcendent to the intelligible and the
observable. They are invisible, even if it will appears that the
universal soul "has already a foot in that matter", which can
accelerate the fall, and not help the coming back to God.

I get that, and I can relate to that, but the idea that the beliefs of a machine should be part of the 'truth' while the physical presence of
a block of iron is not part of truth, throws up a yellow flag to me.
It seems to make more sense the other way around, at least from a
phenomenological perspective rather than a noumenal one. I think that
if matter doesn't exist, then the word existence is probably not a

The wholepoint of Plato, seconded by the UMs and LUMs is that
"seeming" can be a delusion.

Then it follows that ("seeming" can be a delusion) can also be a
delusion. All we have is seeming and seeming correlations of seeming.
See if this grabs you any more than the SEE diagram. 
(based on some discussions I had with Stephen last week).

In Plotinus, and arguably in the Timaeus and Parmenides of Plato,
Matter is where God lose control. It is What God can't determinate.
is God's blindspot. And it has inintelligible properties (the

I think it's just awareness' blind spot. We feel that matter does not feel us. As opposed to music, which we can believe understands how we

That is a play with words.

It is more of a metaphorical truth, yes, but we do feel that music can
address us in an interior way that gross material substance does not.
Matter that has been sculpted into significance, refined as
architecture, furniture, automobiles etc - styled with subjective
enthusiasm - that turns matter into a text of cultural anthropology,
as is music and words.

If I was going to have a God, it would be matter as well.

Like Aristotle. I don't not follow you on this, but it is coherent
with comp. If you want stuffy (ontologically primary) matter, then you
need to abandon comp.

It doesn't have to be ontologically primary, but it is an
ontologically primary appearance, so what is really the difference?
Either way matter is on the same level as mind. Even if we can create
matter through the experience of mathematical agreements and/or
dissociations and/or the fluxes of fluxes of fluxed between them, mind
cannot create matter within it's own PRIF. I can't make matter with my
mind - even in my own brain. Not matter that I can choose anyways. My
brain can make matter, and it does so all the time. Neurotransmitters,
etc. My body makes matter too. So if there's no ontological difference
between mind and matter, why can I not produce a single molecule in
the world outside my body through force of will alone?

it is also
what might be true, and what can be made true through motive

Yes, but arithmetical reality is rich enough to internalize all
"might be true". (Assuming comp).

If there is something that arithmetic reality is not rich enough
internalize, then reality cannot be reduced to arithmetic.

OK. But with comp we dont need to go outside arithmetic, because
arithmetic from inside is already bigger than any outside that we
could imagine.

I feel the same way about sense. Anything can make sense if it is
experienced. Not everything can be counted.

Here comp introduced a key nuance between what is not countable, even
by God, and why is not countable by the finite creature. And there
many intermediate gods and realities, with corresponding notion of
countability. it is very rich, but the main one are the God and "man"
countability notion.
Almost all non trivial machine's property are God-countable, but not

By God I just mean Arithmetical Truth, and by "man" I means UMs and

But if all properties are sensible, whether or not they are countable,
then sense is the greater infinity?

Why would all properties be sensible?

Because if you can't be detected in any way, what is it a property of?

If there is
nothing that cannot be reduced to arithmetic then the label
is a 1004.

As a label, perhaps. But it is a precise theory of everything:
and sharable realities included.

Sense is better. :) Arithmetic may be more practical as far as
cognitive logics, but cognitive logics are limited. Insanity is an
important natural resource.

That is about the first things the LUMS told me: If I am consistent
then it is consistent that I say BS.
Well, I would nuance you and use inconsistency instead of insanity.
Insanity leads to asylum only.

Insanity doesn't always last forever. It can bring enlightenment in
it's wake.

Inconsistency leads to a vast variety
of creative catastrophes, and there are evidence that nature plays
with that. I don't know, about our physical reality, when the first
lie has been made. Perhaps at the big bang, or even much before, I
really have no idea.

That's why I like sense better than arithmetic. It
specifies that the universe is about sense (in every sense), and
is beyond it is non-sense.

I agree, but the LUMS agree also. That's a first person correct
But we search the 3-TOE.

The 3-TOE is that the 3 and the 1 are different views of the same
thing. Sense.

No problem with that. In the 3-TOE which can be isolated from comp,
and which can be taken as just elementary arithmetic (RA, a UM which
is not a LUM), the 1-views and the 3-views are different views of
arithmetic. But the computer science constrained enrich the picture, for there are 8 views: the three primary one 0-view (gods "view"), 1-
view (the usual 3-view, the intelligible one), the 3-view (the
usual 1-
view, the soul, the person, the subject), and the two material
hypostases (the intelligible matter= the observable view), and the
sensible matter (the feelings and sensations).

All that are ways the internal LUM in arithmetic can view arithmetic
from inside.

Hmm. It seems very abstract and hypothetical to me.

It is not. It is concrete like 0, 1, 2, 3, and it follows from the las of addition and multiplication. The rest are definitions, that you can
change, ameliorate, etc.

To me 0, 1, 2, 3 are the height of abstraction. I can't eat a '3'.

I'm saying that the reason that there is no substitute for experience
is not just that you can access more sense than you can through
understanding a theory, but also that because you cannot access more
than the the sense available to you. The feeling of reality is one and
the same with the feeling of not being able to truly escape it's

I can agree.

That cannot be reproduced theoretically or

I think there are the best candidates for doing that.

I think that replication and exploration would be better.

Addition and multiplication emulates replication and exploration, like it emulates abstraction and application. It emulates things more complex than itself, also.

You can always reboot or stop the program.

You can't compare a 100 years old program with a billiard years old
program (or engram).

On the contrary. It is the discovery of lifes and persons in
arithmetic. Consciousness got more than one role (self-speeding
rather handy in a jungle where compete an infinity of universal
entity, not all being machines, BTW.

Who is a person that has been discovered in arithmetic?

You, all of us. Even if comp is false, in which case there are

There are zombies already. Catatonic states. Sleepwalking. Sleep
eating. Sleep driving.

Come on. I talk, like Stathis, about philosophical zombie. They
exactly like a human being, but have no private experience at all.

The states I mention have very little private experience, so it's
really not a problem for me to imagine a walking coma induced by brain
replacement. I agree that they wouldn't 'behave exactly like a human
being' in the sense you intend it, but really that doesn't mean much,
since behaving like a catatonic human being is pretty easy for a
machine to accomplish. It's the weapon metaphor. Human consciousness
is just a more powerful and dangerous weapon than computer, which has
the weapon magnitude more along the lines of a pillow. I catatonic
person is one who has been reduced to something more like a pillow.

My point is that, by definition of philosophical zombie, they behave
like normal and sane human being. It is not walking coma, or catatonic
behavior. It is full human behavior. A zombie might write a book on
consciousness, or have a diary of his dreams reports.

A movie can feature an actress writing a book on consciousness or
doing anything else that can be demonstrated audiovisually. How is
that not a zombie?

The movie lack the counterfactual. If the public shout "don't go the cave!" to the heroine in a thriller, she will not listen. Zombie are different, they behave like you and me. By definition of philosophical zombie, you can't distinguish it from a "real human". You can distinguish a human from filmed human, all right?

If you make it a 3D-hologram of an actress, with
odorama and VR touchback tactile interfaces, then is it a zombie? If
you connect this thing up to a GPS instead of a cinematically scripted
liturgy and put it in an information kiosk, does it become a zombie
then? I don't see much of a difference.

Behaviorally they have no difference with human. Conceptually they are quite different, because they lack consciousness and any private experiences. With comp, such zombies are non sensical, or trivial. Consciousness is related to the abstract relations involved in the most probable computations leading to your actual 3-states.

It's still just a facade which
reflects our human sense rather than the sense of an autonomous logic
which transcends programming. Even if it's really fancy programming,
it's experience has no connection with us. It's a cypher that only
intersects our awareness through it's rear end, upon which we have
drawn a face.

That is an advantage. Precise and hypothetical. Refutable.

True, but it has disadvantages as well. Dissociated and clinical.

So you say.

Meaningless. (cue 'Supertramp - The Logical Song')

So you say.

Right. These qualities cannot be proved from 3-p. Meaning and feeling
are not literal and existential. If they don't insist for you, then
you don't feel them.

Sense contingent upon the theoretical existence
of numbers (or the concrete existence of what unknowable
phenomenon is
represented theoretically as numbers)

Mathematician can study the effect of set of unknowable things. That
is the beauty of what LUMs discover inside their "head", not just a
big Ignorance, but that the Ignorance has a topology, a geometry, a
lot of unexpected feature.

Hopefully it isn't an unfathomably malignant and cunning evil seeking
to evacuate the souls of unsuspecting scientists who are all too
willing to trade their humanity for a chance to peek into an abyss of
empty calculation from which there is no escape. ;)

Comp does the contary of evacuating soul. It reinstall soul in
arithmetic, in a precise and testable way.

I'm ok with that, but I think that it's not a universal soul, it's
just the wireframe map of the logic of soul.

So, you are not OK with that.

This is sort of a picture of 

Don't confuse a theory with the popular human perceptions of that
theory, especially in a context where a form of obscurantism prevails
since a long time.

That picture is more of an oracle. I discovered it in the mural I did
by mirroring the far Occidental side. It was unintentional, but I
think it communicates something about the dangers of computational
extremism. To me anyways.

That's fear selling.
Extremism is prevented by the fact that the comp ethic is the right to say "no" to the doctor. There are dangers, but that is a a reason to study it, not to make it schedule 1.


The dark side of comp - an anti-shaman, conjuring disorder and mayhem
from the a-signifying void. That's what I see anyhow. Curious if you
have a different Rorschach reading of it.

I can see something dark in the picture, but it is not related to
comp. Of course some humans can do dark thing with anything, but that
is not the fault of comp (or just in the sense that comp allows
freewill and freedom)

Yeah, I was just curious to see whether it looked more optimistic and
bright to your mind.


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