Hi Bruno Marchal  

I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on the 
(Firstness) 
output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/6/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 


----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-06, 03:12:01 
Subject: Re: A must read paper 




On 06 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Stephen P. King wrote: 


Hi Folks, 



 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf 


Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness 
Willard L. Miranker, Gregg J. Zuckerman 
(Submitted on 23 Oct 2008) 
We employ the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms that characterize sets as mathematical 
primitives. The Anti-foundation Axiom plays a significant role in our 
development, since among other of its features, its replacement for the Axiom 
of Foundation in the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms motivates Platonic 
interpretations. These interpretations also depend on such allied notions for 
sets as pictures, graphs, decorations, labelings and various mappings that we 
use. A syntax and semantics of operators acting on sets is developed. Such 
features enable construction of a theory of non-well-founded sets that we use 
to frame mathematical foundations of consciousness. To do this we introduce a 
supplementary axiomatic system that characterizes experience and consciousness 
as primitives. The new axioms proceed through characterization of so- called 
consciousness operators. The Russell operator plays a central role and is shown 
to be one example of a consciousness operator. Neural networks supply striking 
examples of non-well-founded graphs the decorations of which generate 
associated sets, each with a Platonic aspect. Employing our foundations, we 
show how the supervening of consciousness on its neural correlates in the brain 
enables the framing of a theory of consciousness by applying appropriate 
consciousness operators to the generated sets in question. 

    This is part of what I have been assuming form the beginning of my 
conversation with Bruno so many moons ago. Its nice to see its independent 
discovery. 





As the cow-boy guessed right this is assuming too much, both for the formalism 
used (which is OK), and the ontology, so it uses implicitly non-comp 
hypothesis, which is less OK, as comp is also assumed implicitly. IT is not 
uninteresting for possible progress, but it is unaware that matter as to be 
explained by statistics on computations "seen from inside". The role of 
"Russell operator" is played by the Kleene second recursion theorem, which 
encapsulates the "non foundation" well enough.  


Bruno 






--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to