On 8/12/2012 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind:
brain   objective and modular
mind   subjective and unitary

OK. You can even say:
brain/body:   objective and doubtable
soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable

The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced.

Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism.

I  believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe
is the monad.  It is the eye of the universe, although for us we
can only perceive indirectly.

I am open to this. The monad would be the "center of the wheel", or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness.

By Leibniz' definition, a monad would be the entire consciousness, the "ego" of "i" or "self" of the monad would be the fixed point.

The machines already agree with you on this : )
(to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.)

See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
    *Receiver:* everything-list
    *Time:* 2012-08-11, 09:52:29
    *Subject:* Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!

    On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote:

    > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
    >> On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
    >>> It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or
    >>> unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority
    of the
    >>> total.
    >> This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point
    >> which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including
    >> mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts,
    >> you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very
    >> of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be
    >> realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have
    >> stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I
    >> that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'.
    > With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not
    > I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his
    > "pandemonia" theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious
    > process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the
    > at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of
    > consciousness is to select from among the course of action
    > presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly
    > consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any
    > (aka reductive) process may be sufficient.
    > The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian
    > process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian
    > is the key to any form of creative process.

    The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and
    like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said
    not contradict Daniel Dennett "pandemonia" or Fodor modularity
    which are very natural in a computationalist perspective.
    Only sufficiently "big" part of the brain can have their own
    consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience,
    like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*)
    The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a
    splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing
    two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed
    Darwinian evolution as well, I think.
    Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It
    might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but
    creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post
    called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for
    that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict
    any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely
    Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple
    (less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It
    might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including
    biological, seem to appear in it. So very simple iteration can
    lead to
    creative process, and this echoes the fact that consciousness and
    creativity might appear more early than we usually thought.

    I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are
    conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected.


    (*) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0




"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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