On 17 Oct 2011, at 12:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

## Advertising

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:We are on the exact same page. This is why I keep barking in Stathisdirection - his view is that there are no emergent propertiesbecauseeverything that exists must be reducible to a molecular level orelseit's magic.Well I'm going to stop guessing about what Stathis thinks and let him chime in if he wants to.There are emergent phenomena but they supervene on the lower level phenomena.

`All right. But which lower level phenomena? To fix a computable level,`

`like saying it is the SWE, would consists to chose a particular`

`universal machine. But below our own substitution level, they all`

`compete, and so the physical cannot be a lower level. Indeed it is, I`

`think, a first person collective projection of meaning, by numbers`

`seeing themselves, a rather high level phenomenon.`

If you reproduce the low level phenomena you reproduce the high level ones as well.

Yes.

There is no downward causation from high level to low level, since that would look like magic.

`That is right. But mind and matter can arise from a simple universal`

`lower level, only in virtue of the fact that a universal machine UM 0`

`can emulate a universal machine transforming itself, or a UM 1`

`transforming a UM 2 transforming a UM 3 .... transforming a UM n`

`transforming UM 1.`

`UM 0 plays the role of your lower level, immune to downward causation`

`from higher level, and so also unable to modify itself, and`

`"unbreakable" (like arithmetic).`

`But a UM 0 can emulate complex loops with causation permeating all`

`levels. So in the net of universal machines downward causation for`

`most levels makes sense, except for the basic one, which is`

`unimportant (like arithmetic, or cominators, etc.).`

`And this leads to a sort of magic, indeed, or hallucinations, or`

`cosmic video games, like plausibly matter among other things. Matter`

`still obeys high level laws, like machines'd dreams obeys laws, but in`

`the mechanist mindscape full circular causation exist. Simple version`

`of it are used in fixed point semantics for programming language (I`

`mean loops of many kind are studied and exploited by computer`

`scientists).`

`I think we agree on this, but we have different emphases on the`

`importance of lower Level, perhaps. I see the lower level as a`

`incognito UMs being a pretext for realizing the full magic of the`

`infinity of UMs reflecting each others.`

Bruno

I would have doubted it too, but no. His argument is straight up19thcentury Billiard Ball Universe determinism. He says that all thatcanhappen in the brain is a chain reaction from neuron to neuron (plus "Inputs" from the external environment).But that is a correct description from the level of single-neuron dynamics. It is utterly deterministic. If you disagree, then you mustshow how, without hand-wavy arguments about will andelectromagnetism.If single-neuron dynamics are not deterministic, then there must be a random or probabilistic dynamic at play. Roger Penrose thinks so, as he says consciousness is rooted in quantum effects. So, are single-neuron dynamics 100% deterministic? If not, why not? What is the *specific* mechanism that makes them non-deterministic? You cannot answer "will" as that would be level confusion once again.Again we must distinguishbetween single neuron dynamics, which are fairly well understood(andcan be roughly modeled in terms of linear dynamics, but only if youdon't care about precision), and large scale dynamics ofensembles ofneurons, which are not all understood in terms of any kind oflinearanalysis. I would be surprised if Stathis disagreed with this description.Ask him. You'll be surprised. From what he has said here, hispositionis that since we do understand single neuron dynamics, then there cannot be anything which cannot be understood using linear analysis.OK, I will await his answer on this if he cares to. You're right, I would be surprised.Whether a system is linear or non-linear is a statement about the mathematical model describing it. Non-linear or chaotic systems, such as the weather, can still be deterministic. -- Stathis Papaioannou --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

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.