On 07 Dec 2011, at 17:14, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
And because of that, we can't assume that it only matters that the
computations are being done, but it may matter how the
computations are
done
and how they are being interfaced with the environment.
One could define computer more narrowly to exclude input and
output, but
in
this case a substitution is impossible, because without input and
output
a
brain or body can't work.
Yes, that's why I think the "level of substitution" might be a whole
universe.
And there is no other to this universe, or something transcendent to
it?
This seems to be incoherent with Brunos conclusion, because the
conclusion
entails that not all of the universe can be digital. But if there is
not
other (or something trascendent to it) that provides input or that
output is
given to, the substituted universe could only consists of the
computations.
[The following is not on this sub-discussion, but is more an
extension of my
first post about the consciousness singularity:]
meekerdb wrote:
Tegmark's argument that the brain is essentially classical only
shows
that you could replace a brain with a digital computer IF you still
have
the rest of the universe to interact with.
Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially
classical if we
assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our
"artificial"
experiments. But it seems natural systems have a better ability to
remain
coherent, when it would be impossible otherwise (see
photosynthesis). So it
seems we can't rely on Tegmarks assumption.
For me, it seems pretty evident now that there is something special
to life
after all in the way it relates to physical laws and in importance
of the
universe. It is just not plausible at all why the universe would be
capable
of self-accelerating evolution if there is no inherent drive in nature
towards intelligence (not human intelligence, universal intelligence,
capability of self-learning). Why would carbon be able to form all
these
complex bounds, and DNA be able to encode information in such a way
that it
is so extremely versatile and universal in its expression, and even
more
amazingly, why would it be working in such a way that at some point
very
small changes can have extremely large effects in terms of
learning-capability (look at humans vs other animals).
It is utterly and totally implausible that this is chance, or is a
necessity
that just happens to be good for intellignent life (why would it?).
Granted, we can invoke the anthrophic principle, but then we are
really
granting that ultimately subjectivity shapes the apparent cosmos,
which most
scientist want to avoid desperately.
Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there,
without
any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for
granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as saying "A creator God
is just
there, we have to take him for granted". It makes no sense (it would
be a
totally absurd universe), and there also is no evidence that natural
laws
are primary (we don't find laws to describe the Big Bang and very
plausibly,
there are none because it is a mathematical singularity).
I think it is much much much more convincing (not to mention
wonderful),
that the universe is based on an inherent self-organizing, self-
learning
consciousness, the I/Self.
It is the ultimate singularity (including the Big Bang singularity).
It is self-evident, and self-explaining (through the evolution of the
cosmos), and extremely simple (it is just Self) so it naturally
needs no
further external explanation.
The only reason that this is not accepted is because the scientific
community is predominatly dogmatically materialistic and based on
scienticsm. It doesn't want something transcendent trans-scientifc,
trans-rational, trans-objective as its base.
But that it is just self-denial, because science always needs
something
beyond science to justify even its most fundamental premises ("the
universe
is basically lawful" for example) and to interpret results (eg QM).
Once we take this possibility seriously many many difficult
questions become
much more answerable (even though of course there is always infinite
ignorance about fundamental questions).
Why is the universe so orderly? Because consciousness is, as
everybody can
observe for themselves, self-ordering through self-seeing.
Why does its behaviour approximate laws, but is still not entirely
predictable? Because natural laws are useful for consciousness to
navigate
the world and use it.
Why is there life and why is the universe suited for life? Because the
universe (multiverse) is already intelligent and uses life for further
development towards even more intelligence.
If the universe is intelligent, why does it appear so stupid and
uncaring
and unconscious oftentimes? It is not humanly intelligent,
consciousness is
not rational or moral or planning, it only sees its own order, which
may be
"stupid" from the persepective of humans, but still has its own
intelligence
(which lies in its simplicity). Consciousness does not belong to
something
and has no location, so we can't find consciousness in particular
matter.
What is the meaning of all of this? Self-meaning. Self-order.
Ultimately
leading to ever increasing, boundless insight, creativity and
happiness.
It's all we could ever wish for, and unimaginably much more. It
provides a
infinite richness of unlimited beauty that is so marvelous that our
wildest
imaginations of heaven (or the nerd equivalent the technological
singularity) are not even a pale shadow of the truth and the real
goodness
of our future.
What is the fate of the cosmos? Ever increasing self-order at ever
greater
scales and at ever greater efficiency, ever increasing unity,
connection,
diversity.
Why can paranormal events not be easily verified scientifically?
They aren't
objective phenomena, the objective world is just a small aspect of
consciousness - if we try to objectify them (get rid of subjective
influences, like done in science) they largly vanish.
I can relate with many things you say.
Indeed I can argue that the universal (Löbian) machine already relate
on this, too.
But science get rid only on subjective judgement in publication
(ideally), making them universally communicable.
But considering the subjective influence themselves, science prohibit
them only by bad habits, ignorance, since about theology has been
abandoned to or stolen by the politics (523 after C.). it is just a
form of (sad) prohibition. It is above all "unscientific".
If there is already infinite intelligence, why can't we really find
it? It
is not to be found in the objective world, and so it is hard for us as
beings fixated on objects and external circumstance to get in touch
with it.
It will come naturally to us as we get more in touch with the
reality of us
being infinite consciousness.
Is ther life after death? Life of consciousness is already eternal.
Individuals are only different expressions of consciousness, not
seperate
beings.
Why is there accelerating development? Because it lies in the nature
of
self-organizing universal intelligence to self-organize to self-
organize
better.
How can the human problems be solved? They needn't be, consciousness
takes
care of itself, and as soon as we see that, the apparent problems
become
irrelevant. It is not luck that we survived that far, consciousness
self-regulates to make sure important intelligent structures surive.
If subjectivity is primary, why can't we simply transcend all physical
limits and make ourselves happy? The universe doesn't care about
individual
transcendence or happiness, it needs physical limits to help order
itself in
a consistent (non-dreamy) way, until it learns to trascend the
limits (which
requires, among other things, universal cooperative behaviour among
humans).
What is our individual part in all of this? Naturally learn to
recognize
that we as individuals are just a part of the whole that we really
are, and
through this, learn to finally relax into our true infinite
consciousness
and be really free. It isn't so important what we do, the things go
the way
they do anyway.
And here, according to the machine's comp theory (AUDA) you might be
rather true, but cross what can be communicated without making some
non provable assumption clear. Or you should add something like "I
hope that ...".
With comp, consciousness is fundamental, but not primitive. It is
derivable from some intersection between truth, provability and
consistency. Truth is not definable (by the machine) nor is
consciousness.
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.
