On 19 Jun 2012, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent, Stephen,
On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/18/2012 11:51 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced
a separation between me and not me, and the "not me" below my
substitution level get stable and persistent by the statistical
interference between the infinitely many computations leading to
my first person actual state.
How does on computation interfere with another? and how does that
define a conscious stream of thought that is subjective agreement
with other streams of thought?
Brent
They interfere statistically by the first person indeterminacy on
UD* (or arithmetic).
That still seems very vague. I can suppose that many computations
go thru the same or similar sequences which later branch and so have
indeterminant futures. But is that 'interference'?
Sure. Of course a priori it is not wave like, for the probabilities
add only, untilm you take the self-reference constraint into account,
which leads to the arithmetical quantization, which imposes a quantum
logic on the consistent extensions.
And why should it produce any "me", "not me" boundary?
It does not. "personal identity" is an illusion due to disconnected
memories, and correct self-reference. The me/not me is just explained
by the diagonalisation: if Dx gives xx, DD gives DD.
And it remains to be seen if that defines a conscious stream of
thought that is subjective agreement with other streams of thought.
Do you realize that you are asking Bruno the same question
here that I have been asking him for a long time now? Exactly how
do computations have any form of causal efficacy upon each other
within an immaterialist scheme?
By the embedding of a large part of the constructive computer
science in arithmetic.
There is a universal diophantine polynomial (I will say more on
this on the FOAR list soon). Once you have a universal system, you
get them all (with CT). I might identify a notion of cause with the
notion of universal (or not) machine. Some existing number relation
implements all the possible relations between all possible
universal machine.
You have to study the detail of Gödel's proof, or study Kleene's
predicate, which translate computer science in arithmetic. For the
non materialist, the problem is not to get interactions, the
problem is not having too much of them.
Exactly. It's the problem of having proved too much. To say all
computations can exist and if consciousness is computation then all
conscious thoughts will exist is true but meaningless - like
tautologies are.
It is not tautological because we can test if there are too much
computations and if they obey quantum logic or not, so it is certainly
not tautological. You forget that the laws of physics are given by the
statistics on those computations.
Bruno
Brent
Keep in mind I submit a problem, for the computationalist. Not a
solution., but precise problems. You can use the arithmetical
quantization to test test the quantum tautologies.
We will see if there is or not some winning topological quantum
computer on the border of numberland, as seen from inside all
computations.
Bruno
Might it be that 'subjective agreement" between streams of thought
is just another form of what computer science denotes as
bisimulation (except that it is not a timeless platonic version of
it)?--
Onward!
Stephen
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
