Thnks Bruno, Specially your agreement on dualism make me feel more
confident.

2012/7/31 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

> 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
>>>>> 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 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