Qualia aspect?
Please consider my 'rigid' agnostic stance with all those unknowable
aspects playing into - what you so succinctly call: 'qualia' - I struggled
for a long time to boil down my MOST GENERALIZED definition for something
that would cover what many of us (?) call consciousness.
I don't want to put a partial group of qualia on the banner.
Besides: I fell into my own concept of 'networks of Networks (Karl Jaspers
Forum TA62MIK) according to which there is no limitation how far
connections may go.
So whatever I would name 'qualia' is by Occam's razor.
Not as a term of the infinite complexity I have in mind.
JM

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
>  On 12 May 2012, at 22:51, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Pure non-consciousness?
> that would approach the 'pure(?) nothingness'  - even in my generalized
> definition of Ccness:
> "response to relations" leaving open he definition of a response and of
> relations. Otherwise it is perfect.
>
>
> But 'response to relations' miss the qualia aspect of consciousness.
>
>
>
>  RESPONSE came in as a concoction from "acknowledgement of and response
> to" since you cannot respond without acknowledging to WHAT you reflect.
> RELATION came in from the visualized (infinite) complexity of which we
> also are part and lots of so far unknown eements are included that MAY
> influence our 'world' (the model). All 'information' (hard to specify!)
> ends up in relations as it 'refers' to complexity-aspects.
>
>
> That is a bit unclear for me.
>
>
>  Sorry for using so many unfamiliar words.
>
>
> That might explain why.
>
> Bruno M
>
>
>  John M
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>>
>>  On 10 May 2012, at 21:09, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>  Bruno and Ricardo:
>>  ...unless you remove the "boundries" as well - I think.
>> That would end up for "nothing" with a POINT, which is still a point and
>> not nothing. (If you eliminate the point???)
>> John M
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we agree John. Pure nothingness makes no sense. Pure
>> non-consciousness makes no sense either.
>> And besides, with the comp assumption, we have to assume the numbers and
>> addition and multiplication, if not, words like "digital" have no meaning.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  On 09 May 2012, at 21:39, R AM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "nothing" could also be obtained by removing the curly brackets from
>>>> the empty set {}.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Noooo... Some bit of blank remains. If it was written on hemp, you
>>>> could smoke it. That's not nothing!
>>>>
>>>> Don't confuse the notion and the symbols used to point to the notion.
>>>> Which you did, inadvertently I guess.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was using the analogy between items contained in sets and things
>>> contained in bags. The curly brackets would represent the bags. Removing
>>> things from a bag leaves it empty. Removing the bag leaves ... nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing in the universe of sets. But this makes not much sense. And you
>>> have still an empty universe. Then you will tell me to remove all
>>> universes, but you will still get an empty multiverse. Oh, you can get rid
>>> of all multiverses, but you will still have an empty multi-multiverse. Oh,
>>> you can reiterate this in the transfinite, ... but you need some rich
>>> theory at the metalevel, then. Absolute nothingness does not make sense in
>>> my opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   Sure, like 0 is some sort of nothing in Number theory, and like
>>>> quantum vacuum is some sort of nothing in QM. Nothing is a theory dependent
>>>> notion. (Not so for the notion of computable functions).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, these concrete nothings are well behaved, unlike the absolute
>>> nothing, which we don't know what rules it obey (in case it is a meaningful
>>> concept, which it might not be).
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   Extensionally, the UD is a function from nothing (no inputs) to
>>>> nothing (no outputs), but then what a worker!
>>>>
>>>> Extensionally it belongs to { } ^ { }. It is a function from { } to {
>>>> }.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But I guess that is because the UD generates internally all possible
>>> inputs for all possible programs, isn't it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ricardo.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>  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.
>

-- 
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