Thnks Bruno, Specially your agreement on dualism make me feel more confident.
2012/7/31 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > Hi Alberto, > > On 31 Jul 2012, at 11:08, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > Evgenii, great questions > > 2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi <[email protected]> > >> 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 >>>>> inheritance] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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. > > > OK. > > > > 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 >>>>> direction: >>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/****agcorona1/arrow-of-time-**<http://www.slideshare.net/**agcorona1/arrow-of-time-**> >>>>> determined-by-computability<ht**tp://www.slideshare.net/** >>>>> agcorona1/arrow-of-time-**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: > > > https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbl4DxQDMxQPWgT9KC5I-W14ykhrOC7vKfGIk3YhxVHLgsP2_W > > 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 >>>> universe >>>> >>> 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 >>>> the >>>> >>> 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. > > > OK. > > > > > > >> 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. > > > OK. > > Bruno > > 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. > -- 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.
