On 02 Oct 2012, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I agree that conscious selection is a posteriori,
but the selector and his possible biases or personal
baggage are a priori. He has or is a self.
It is the "a priori" part that I am referring to
when I insist that the selector must be
able to make autonomous choices. The choice
must be based mostly on the "inside" = the
selector's mind. In other words,
autonomous = a priori
OK, so we agree on this too. To put it simply, choice depends on who
you are, and who you are depends on who you have been.
Selection is used only in the QM or comp context, and has nothing to
do with choice and autonomy. Its role in comp and QM is in the
singularization and partial relative selection of the local "material"
conditions (your most probable universal neighborhood).
My understanding of personal or subjective or 1p filtering
has little to do with where the person is (Washington or Moscow).
it has to do (if I might say it this way) with where the person has
Hmm, this defines the person. But in the duplication experience, the
problem is that the "have been" is duplicated identically, and put in
different places. This entails a first person indeterminacy: before
the duplication, and knowing the protocol of the duplication, the
person is indetermined about its immediate, post-duplication, future.
This is almost another topics, and I have mentioned it only to recall
that with comp, matter is not a primary stuff. You might read my paper
sane04 if interested.
Yes, complete autonomy of the mind may not be possible, I agree,
but we seem to survive this problem.
Not sure. Anne Frank was an autonomous agent, until its neighborhood
fight badly back: she did not survive the concentration camps. She
might have survived in some alternate reality, but we can't access it
now. Survival also is relative, but the death of others are "absolute
relatively to the branch of reality you can be here and now".
My objection that sufficent computer autonomy may not be possible
to emulate life is still a doubt in my mind.
Good. Doubting is a symptom of mind sanity and of soul honesty.
In both of these cases, the ultimate limitation might be language,
meaning words or the symbols of calculation. Peirce said that we
think in symbols. But symbols are Thirdness, the raw stuff
filtered (or distorted) from a particular point of view. Words
are known to be cultural products. Symbols of computation
depend on what a computation can do and how we define
the symbols, which I suppose goes back to the limitations
and distortions of words.
Let me try this:
1) Computer programs use selected symbols and program designs.
Hmmm... OK (but this admits different interpretations, I choose the
one which seems most coherent with the present discussion, and with
2) These symbols and designs are man-made and hence sometimes
distorted and imperfect. I admit that simple calculations can be
Only locally so. Humans can believe that they have "invented" the
computer, but computer have appeared in nature all the time since the
beginning, and eventually with comp, nature itself is a "video game"
selected by the infinitely many computers existing in arithmetic
independently of time and space.
3) So computer programs are quite possibly reflections of whoever
made the program,
and of the distortions of computer language, not life itself.
I can guess the nuances, but it is a form of anthropomorphism. Life,
for a computationalist is almost captured by a very simple program:
In essence what I am saying here is that only a perfect being can
OK. Arithmetical truth can be considered perfect, somehow, and it
creates life and lives.
But maybe I am being too hard on the possibilities or impossibilities.
A golem would still be interesting.
There is no worry. God recognizes his creatures, in heaven.
But it is nice also when the creatures recognizes themselves on earth,
but that can take time.
It is nice as it makes suffering less necessary. It is harm reductive.
But women get the votes only recently herby, and machines, which are
made into slaves at the start, are not yet asking.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
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