On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:43:29 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2012, at 05:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Jason Resch
> > wrote:
> >> Pain is anything but epiphenomenal. The fact that someone is able
> >> to talk about it rules out it being an epiphenomenon.
> > The behaviour - talking about the pain - could be explained entirely
> > as a sequence of physical events, without any hint of underlying
> > qualia.
> With comp a physical events is explained in term of measure and
> machine/number relative consciousness selection (à la WM-duplication
> Physics is phenomenal. It is an internal consciousness selection made
> on coherent computations (arithmetical relations).
> We can't explain physics without a theory of quanta, which, in comp,
> is a sub-theory of a theory of consciousness/qualia.
> Consciousness is not epiphenomenal: it is the "extractor" of the
> physical realities in arithmetic. We could say that consciousness is
> the universal self-accelerating property of the universal number which
> makes possible the differentiation of the experience, and then the
> physical reality is a projection. I could consider consciousness as
> the main "force" in the universe, even if it is also a phenomenal
> reality (the ontology being only arithmetic, or finite combinatorial
We are on the same page here then. My only question is, if consciousness is
the main "force" in the universe, doesn't it make more sense to see
arithmetic as the "condenser" of experiences into physical realism? I can
easily see why experience would need semiotic compressions to organize
itself, but I can see no reason that arithmetic or physical realities would
possibly need to be 'extracted', or even what that would mean. Why execute
a program if all possible outcomes are already computable?
> If you associate consciousness with the unconscious (automated)
> inference in self-consistency, you can explain formally that self-
> accelerating relative processes. It makes consciousness the "cause" of
> all motions in the physical universe, even if the "cause" are given by
> infinities of arithmetical relations + the (apparently plural
> personal) self-selection.
> > By analogy, we can explain the behaviour of a billiard ball
> > entirely in physical terms, without any idea if the ball has qualia or
> > some other ineffable non-quale property. In the ball's case this
> > property, like the experience of pain, would be epiphenomenal, without
> > causal efficacy of its own.
> > --
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > .
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at