On Saturday, July 14, 2012 5:52:33 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: 
> > On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: 
> >> 
> >> On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: 
> > 
> > ... 
> > 
> >>> 
> >>> If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first 
> >>> person view accesses numbers and mathematical objects. 
> >> 
> >> Like a digital machine, which can access numbers encoded in their 
> >> memory, through logical gates, and so one. More details are given 
> >> currently on the FOAR list, but the idea is simple, with comp our 
> >> bodies are statistical first person constructs related to infinities 
> >> of number relations, so we access to them a bit like a fish can 
> >> access water. The price of this is that we have to abandon 
> >> physicalism eventually. 
> > 
> > I am not sure if I understand. I would like to have an explanation   
> > for a phenomenon, for example 
> > 
> > 1) I see a cat; 
> > 
> > 2) I see a piece of paper with 2 + 2 = 4. 
> > 
> > Yet, when you start explaining, the phenomenon seems to disappear. 
> 1) I see a cat. This is explained by the fact that your current   
> computational state belongs to an infinity of computations making you   
> singling out some stable patterns that you recognize, by access to   
> your previous experience as being cat. 

Patterns? Stability? Previous experience as being (a) cat? What are those 
things? Where are they found in arithmetic? Sounds like aspects of... 

If you scoop those things into a explanation of the origin awareness and 
call it comp, how is that not begging the question of awareness? If we 
begin with sense and sense-making, then computation follows as a method of 
offloading or condensing first person experiences into a projected third 
person shadow, but it doesn't make any sense the other way around.

I agree with Evgenii and Stephen that you are in fact disappearing the 
appearance and physicality of the cat. 


> The qualia itself is explained   
> by the fact that when you refer to the cat, you are really referring   
> to yourself (with the implicit hope that it corresponds to some   
> relatively independent pattern)

But that isn't the reality is it? When we show a young child a cat, when we 
point to it and say cat, we are eminently aware of the common reality of 
the cat. We aren't hoping for any computational match that depends on the 
self - if anything the child has a richer, more objectively observant 
experiences of the cat with more subtle qualities than we have as blunted 
adults, although we could talk much more about the names of cat breeds and 
the price of veterinary care.

I agree that there is computation involved but I think it goes in the 
opposite direction - it begins with wholeness and then breaks out into 
analytical process. Think of visual focus as qualia. When you cross your 
eyes, you get more information - two separate images which lack the realism 
of the focused visual perception. When you focus, you are more present in 
the world that you are focusing on. It becomes more real. Your channel of 
sense awareness is as unobstructed as it can be (to your naked eye, in the 
body you have now, etc) so you can see the difference between a solipsistic 
blur and a coherent connection with exterior realism. Pattern has something 
to do with it, as well as computation, but like the two blurred images, 
they mean nothing unless they are brought together by a third and primary 
sense-maker, to whom the matter of sensemaking inherently matters. 
Computation cannot supply this 'matter' (v) or its reflection/shadow 
'matter' (n) because it is itself a shadow - an overflow condensation of 
subjectivity which skips the vertical subjective depth and leaves only the 
horizontal intersubjective plane.

> , and the math shows that such a self- 
> reference involves some true but non rationally communicable feature.   
> The math explained why, if this justification is correct, machines/ 
> numbers will not be entirely satisfied by it, for the first person is   
> not a machine from its own first person view. 

But the math gives no hint as to what forms these features take - which is 
the only thing that needs explaining. Math explains that the self thinks it 
is a self? Ok. So does a mirror. Impressive, I agree it is impressive that 
so many things can be derived from math, but they are not used in math, 
only mentioned. They have no power at all, they are only mental pictures of 
power. Indirect. Distant. Invisible. Like God.

> 2) The same with "2+2=4 written on some paper". It is also a stable   
> pattern in the computations going through your state. Here you might   
> just refer to what you have learned in school, and you might   
> considered that the truth referred by that sentence on a paper is more   
> stable than a cat, but the conscious perception of cat or ink on paper   
> admits the same explanation: some universal number reflect a pattern   
> belonging to almost all computations going through your state. You   
> have to take the first person indeterminacy into account, and keep in   
> mind that your immediate future is determined by an infinity of   
> computations/universal number, going through your actual state. For   
> example, all the Heisenberg matrices computing the state of the galaxy   
> at some description level for some amount of steps. They all provably   
> exist independently of us in a tiny part of elementary arithmetic, and   
> admit at least as many variants as there are possible electron   
> location in their energy level orbitals. 
> I cannot be sure if this helps you as it relies to some familiarity   
> with the first person indeterminacy and the fact that our comp states   
> are distributed in an infinity of distinct, from a third person pov,   
> computations (existing in arithmetic). 
> Bruno 
Nah, it is the third person computations that are distilled (by perception 
and participation) out of least common denominator sense experiences of 
solid bodies. Without solid bodies, there is no computation possible, but 
theoretically, a pure fluid could have awareness. Arguably, everything that 
has biological-level consciousness is primarily dependent on fluid for its 
awareness...which is why dehydrating living people for easier storage is 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
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