On 11 Feb 2012, at 03:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Dennett's Comp:
Human "1p" = 3p(3p(3p)) -

What do you mean precisely by np(np) n = 1 or 3. ?

Subjectivity is an illusion

And I guess we agree that this is total nonsense.

Machine 1p = 3p(3p(3p)) - Subjectivity is not considered formally

My view:
Human 1p = (1p(1p(1p))) - Subjectivity a fundamental sense modality
which is qualitatively enriched in humans through multiple organic

Even infinite "organic nestings", which might not even make sense.

Machine 1p = (3p(3p(1p))) - Machine subjectivity is limited to
hardware level sense modalities, which can be used to imitate human 3p
quantitatively but cannot be enriched qualitatively to human 1p.

Which seems ad hoc for making machine non conscious.
Again we see here that you accept that your position entails the existence of philosophical zombies, that is: the existence of unconscious machines perfectly imitating humans in *all* circumstances.

Machine or human 1p = (1p(f(x)) - Subjectivity arises as a result of
the 1p set of functional consequences of specific arithmetic truths,
which (I think) are neither object, subject, or sense, but Platonic
universal numbers.

Is that close?

I just say that IF we are machine, then some tiny part of arithmetical truth is ontologically enough, to derive matter and consciousness, and is necessary (up to recursive equivalence). Subjectivity comes from self-reference + Truth.

"Truth about a weaker LUM" is definable by a stronger LUM, but no LUM can defined its own global notion of truth (which will play the role of the first greek God, like Plotinus ONE). Weak and String are defined in term of the set of provable (by the entity in question) arithmetical (or equivalent) propositions.



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