Hi Alberto,

On 31 Jul 2012, at 11:08, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Evgenii, great questions

2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

What do you mean by "the world of the mind is different form the phisico-mathematical world"? Is this as by Descartes res cogitans vs. res extensa?

As you said, it is a matter of common sense and Descartes had it. But it can be also derived from the Computational hypothesis in virtue of it, even monist materialists have to accept the world of the mind, (and I need the opinion of Bruno) because two different "material substrates" can support the same mind. Materialism is a monism but has a hidden dualism that is converted back into monism by the process of avoiding delicate questions, for example the nature of perceptions and the nature of the suppossedly "external" phenomenons that they affirm that they study, This i suspect, does not resist a deep examination. Within the monist sceintist, It resurfaces in the mathematical nature of reality that implies a dualism between matter and (some) mathematics. That is because matter ,and perceived phenomenons of "reality" are nothing but mental categories like electron, Person, among other more abstract like USA or Vanity or Essence, all of them have some correspondence with the outer world, that I argue, is purely mathematical. This is the world outside of the mind. Any way you take it, wether the mind is a product of the matter or the opposite or something else, there are two different realities. no matter if you put both in a single substance, or you divide them

I agree with all what is said here. I comment rarely your post because I usually agree with them.

I do think there is a phenomenological dualism between mind and matter, and I do think we can retrieve it from computationalism, where such dualism (and others) arise from the fact that all the points of view of the self-observing machine obeys different logics, and generates different structures in the mind.

[Our phenomenology conform a common, communicable reality among us
because it is the product of a common mind, that is a product of
a common brain architecture, that is a result of a common brain
development program that is a result of a common genetic

Let me ask Max Velmans' question again. According to neuroscience,
all conscious experience including visual is in the brain. Hence,
according to the ultimate causes, is the brain in the world or the
world in the brain? What would you say?

Again, this question is quite important, as we have to define what
observation is. Does for example observation happens in the brain

The activity of the brain is the mind and the mind is a separate
world that includes all that can be perceived. What is outside of the
mind may just plain mathematics. What we call phisical world is in
reality set of phenomenons perceived by the mind. Observations happen
in the mind. We can repeat and verify experiments because we live in
the same mathematical reality outside of the mind, and because our
minds have similar architecture and experience, so we have the same
language, interests, experimental machines, procedures, so, as Eric
Voegelin said, we live in a shared social mind.

I am not sure if I understand. How do you connect these two assumptions:

"What we call phisical world is in reality set of phenomenons perceived by the mind."

"because we live in the same mathematical reality outside of the mind"

Do you mean that the world outside of the mind is congruent with the perceived world by the mind?

Yes. This is not magical, but a product of natural selection. Our mental world is made to support life, and life is the art of maintaining and reproducing our bodies, that live outside of the mind. A computer can simulate anythnig we want, but our brains are dedicated computers devoted full time to carefully examine the external reality that appear to our perception as phenomenons or else, we would not survive. Some irrealities can be accepted when they are in a trade-off with other more valuable knowledge, or the perception is too expensive. We do not see individual dangerous bacterias for example, but we avoid them by smell and taste and some visual clues, well before we noticed its existence.

So when we have in front of our eyes an arrangement of atoms that has direct or indirect meaning for our purposes, we identifty and classify it according with his "use": men, women, disgusting, pleasing, horses, experiments, countries..but also atoms, electrons and so on. And we proceed acordingly. None of these things exist outside of the mind, but what we are sure of is that outside there is something that make all of us perceive the same things and it respond with certain laws that we have discovered that are mathematical. So both are congruent because the mind evolved to be congruent, but not only congruent, but congruent in certain defined ways. There is a branch called evolutionary epistemology that study the epistemological consequences of the evolved nature of our mind.

However, The COMP hypothesis it is possible to parsimoniously
substitute every component of the brain by a silicon analogue without
the mind being aware of the change. this , for me, makes the question
"were our minds come from" a mistery

Do you know Bruno's theorem? If yes, what do you think about it?

Yes, I agree with the first steps, but do not see the need of computing the universe.

The physical universe is not computed, it is only emerging from the first person (hopefully plural) indeterminacy due to the competition between an infinity of universal machine or number to generate your state. With comp neither matter nor consciousness are Turing emulable, only truncated bodies at the substitution level can make a consciousness able to manifest itself relatively to you and your most plausible environment/universal-numbers. Assuming comp, the apparent computability of our environment is the mystery, and without QM, which include apparent local non computability, I would have found comp not empirically plausible.

rather than that, I see that the living beings compute and this computational nature of living beings impose very strict requirements for an existent universe that exist, that is, can be observed by life forms.


Rather than deciding arbitrarily that a universe must be mathematical or computational or absent from contradictions, is the computational nature of life what imposes a mathematical universe with smooth, continuous macroscopical phisical laws under reusable mathematical structures that appears again and again in different contexts. This is the only way for living beings to evolve and to evolve minds capable of understanding the universe. Otherwise, the brain necessary for a complex universe would be too complex for natural selection to design it and even life would not appear in the first place.

OK. More or less (a bit quick perhaps).

An example of ultimate causes may be the theory of Relativity,
statistical mechanics, the fact that we live in a four
dimensional universe and our 4d life lines go along a maximum
gradient of entropy, and the desplacement along these lines is
called time, that is local to each line. Another ultimate cause
is the nature of natural selection, how and why a certain
aggregate of matter can maintain its internal entropy in his path
trough a line of maximum increase of entrophy, and it is by
detection computation and acting to avoid dangers and to capture
good things. The good and bad entropy must come in identifiable
bags in an eternal "videogame". This is a requisite for life. Non
avoidable changes of entropy causes mass extinctions.

[The maximum gradient of entropy is paradoxically at first sight,
the most computable path, that is why life proceed in this
determined-by-computability<http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-computability >


In your presentation you use terms causation and computation. How
would you define them?

Causation is a consequence of life, that proceed in a definite direction, the direction of entropy increase. In a space-time unverse , such is the solutions of general theory of relativity or the M theory, there is no notion of beginning nor end. some solutions are represented as a four dimentional bell with a singularity in the peak of the bell. For example:


That´s all. No beginning , no end . No time. No causes. Is our urge for seeing our arrow of time represented in the bell, and to add some causalities what adds to the figure a notion of principle, in the singularity and a a initial "explosion" (why not implosion back?) . This is unavoidable, but it is not something phisically demanded by the equations.

But why we see causes and efects and time-dependent phisical laws? . Our local experiments in physics do have causalities and time because we observe them going trough our arrow of time. We see photons emerging from a bulb. We do not see photons converging to the bulb and heating the metal in the bulb in a way that produce electricity back. In this case the causes and effects would reverse. This reverse process is compatible with the microphisical laws and we would observe it in this same universe if our lifes would proceed in the reverse arrow of time, but this is not the case and moreover, it is impossible, because a this reverse arrow produce umpredictable phenomenons such are "miracolous" convergences of photons in lightbulbs and thus are not computable. A living being could not make use of the environment and would die (or disintegrate). so life is not possible in this reverse direction. That is what I try to demonstrate in my presentation and in the associated documents.

The fact that macroscopical phisical laws(like the law of thermodinamics, the achimedes principle, the dynamic of bodies reduced to the dynamic of its center of gravity etc) do have a arrow of time while microscopical laws do not obey to the same reasons why life is possible in this direction and not in the opposite: we can reason about whole macroscopical objects in the entropy increase direction, but in the opposite direction we are forced to consider individual particle by particle trajectories.

This is very plausible. It is certainly defensible in the QM (Everett), and in comp, where it can be justified by iteration of the self-duplicating aspect of observers in arithmetic.
Life exists on the border between the computable and the non computable.

Under the idea of four dimensional (or higuer dimensional) block
where time are included and everithing is static, causality does not
exist. The M theory describes a timeless manifold, but there are
partial phisical laws, that describe particular local phenomenons,
that uses time as parameters, but these phisical laws which take time
as parameter, do not have a preference for a particular arrow of
time, so, as I try to show,  heat in the air can rearrange the pieces
of a porcelain vase and push it up to the table. causality appears in
our time-oriented mind, who proceed, as I try to demonstrate in the
presentation, in the computable direction , the direction of entropy
increase. for this reason causes are less entropic that consequences.
is the drop of the vase what causes his crash because entropy
increase is the direction of life and we observe it this way.

Let us say that there is some conglomerate of atoms. When it
computes and when not?

From a black-box perspective, they compute when they are open to to
environment and they maintain its internal entropy. That may be the
definition of life too. From inside, they must live in a predictable
environment with smooth phisical laws where entrophy dangers and
opportinities can be discovered to react appropriately

I would suggest to consider a series as follows:

A greath exercise,

1) A rock;
A rock does not compute but it may be said that it maintain its internal order by generating a newtonian force equal and opposed to every force exerted against it. So it may be considered that perform a analogical computation. But a rock does not preserve and extend its information by reproduction.


2) A ballcock in the toilet;
It is an analogical device with a detector (the piece thar floats) and an actuator (the piece that closes the flux of water) . Both are solidary. The computation is the most simple possible: upon a threshold the flux of water is interrupted.

OK. I do think that life and consciousness manifestation necessitates universality (or near-universality, or some weakening). Self- consciousness arises with Löbianity which is equivalent with universality + self-awareness of that universality.

3) A self-driving car;
A self driving car can maintain temporally its internal order by acting as consequence of computations that take sensory information as input. The crankshaft is an analogical computer that coordinate the cycle of the engine cilinders. But this order can not last across generations unless humans repair, maintain the information of how to build it and assemble more. His life status may be the less than the one of a virus.

"Alive" is sometimes used for "conscious". But third person life is conventional. I like to say that virus are alive, even if, like parasites, they need another living organism to steal the needed materials. It makes me say that cigarettes are alive too, with a complex reproduction cycle, acting on the human mind to grow the tobacco plant and manufacture the protecting boxes. Then the cigarette has developed a way to force human to burn them and inject the smoke in the brain and forcing them to act in a way which enforces the continuation of the cycle. But unlike consciousness, I think that the problem of the definition of life is a bit conventional and not much interesting.

4) A living cell.

A living cell perform chemical computations. For example. upon contact or the receptors of the membrane with certain proteins, it trigger a reaction that make the membrane localy permeable to accept this protein . the mcrobiological literature is full of chains of chemical reactions to produce ATP, sugars, proteins, using gene sequences , enzymes, RNA etc, that are the computations performed by the cell in order to maintain its internal order, Also to reproduce, to segregate substances for other cells, if they are social cells and so on. Schneider page about molecular machines is very good. It defines clear definitions for entropy and information for such molecular machines. http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/

computations for life is the art of achieving good internal correlations between chemical and neurological systems in a way that every possible input produces an output that is good for the system. The engineer that select such correlation is the process of natural selection. If the correlations are good, the living being survive. if not, another mutant variation can solve the problem and survive. In the process, natural selection construct a genetic storage and transmission system, an enzimatic machinery to execute the genetic program and produce proteins, a replication system, a sensory system, a information processing center, i.e a brain, and actuators to execute responses and so on in multicellular and social systems.




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