Hi Roger,

Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning. Any 
system whose output is unreadable to another system will be indeterminate 
and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply subjectivity. Subjectivity 
can only be an inherent possibility in all possible universes - and, I 
suggest is is perpetually the least likely possibility in any given 
universe. This means that subjectivity itself is the alpha and omega 
continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, from which the 
illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm perturbations in 
the frequency band.

I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics, 
information theory, consciousness, and religion.

Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely 
divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1% 
entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating 
constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the 
extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the 
public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of 

I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of accumulating 
qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad) which balances 
the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public space I call 
solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that excretes public 
entropy (space) as exhaust.


On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
> I agree.
> Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
> Cs = subject + object
> The subject is always first person indeterminate.
> Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <javascript:>
> 8/29/2012 
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
> everything could function."
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
> *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary
>   This sentence does not speak English.
> These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves.
> s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷
> 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 G锟斤拷del 
> (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?
> Craig
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OP7M4cmbaCIJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
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