On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:09:12 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Bruno Marchal
> > You can approximate consciousness by "belief in self-consistency". This
> > already a "causal efficacy", notably a relative self-speeding ability
> > Gödel "length of proof" theorem). But "belief in self-consistency" is
> > 3p, and is not consciousness, you get consciousness because the machine
> > confuse the belief in self-consistency with the truth of its
> > self-consistency, and this will introduce a quale. The machine can be
> > of it, and (with enough cognitive ability) the machine will be aware of
> > non communicability, making it into a personal quale.
> > I think you are doing a confusion level, like if matter was real, and
> > consciousness only emerging on it. I thought that some times ago you did
> > understand the movie graph argument, so that it is the illusion of brain
> > matter which emerges from consciousness, and this gives another role for
> > consciousness: the bringing of physical realities through number
> > being selected (non causally, here). Consciousness is what makes notions
> > causal efficacy meaningful to start with.
> I object to the idea that consciousness will cause a brain or other
> machine to behave in a way not predictable by purely physical laws.
> Some people, like Craig Weinberg, seem to believe that this is
> possible but it is contrary to all science. This applies even if the
> whole universe is really just a simulation, because what we observe is
> at the level of the simulation.
That is not what I believe at all. I have corrected you and others on this
many times but you won't hear it. Nothing unusual needs to happen in the
brain for ordinary consciousness to take place, it's just that physics has
nothing to say about whether billions of synapses will suddenly begin
firing in complex synchronized patterns or not. Physics doesn't care. Can
neurons fire when conditions are right? Yes. Can our thoughts and
intentions directly control conditions in the brain? YES. Of course.
Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't care any more about the human brain than
we would a wasps nest. It's not that physics needs to be amended, it is
that experience is part of physics, and physics is part of experience.
> > I think it is the same error as using determinacy to refute free-will.
> > would be correct if we were living at the determinist base level, but we
> > not. Consciousness and free-will are real at the level where we live,
> > unreal, in the big 3p picture, but this concerns only the "outer god",
> > the "inner one" which can *know* a part of its local self-consistency,
> > cannot know its local future.
> Stathis Papaioannou
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