This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
sɹǝʇʇǝl uǝʌǝ ʇ,uǝɹɐ ǝsǝɥʇ
If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate
that form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
ascertaining the origin of awareness.
Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what
Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp
contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that Gödel
(and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course
agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be
complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this,
but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that
this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining
consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a
priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.
Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness.
It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category
of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the
question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not
been addressed at all.
As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to
demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative
assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another
thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure
up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
follow from quanta.
Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of
sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining
shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would
necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between
channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial
frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the
entropy of the totality.
Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from
either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences,
for direct participation?
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at