On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
Philosophers such as Lucas, Hofstadter and Chalmers as well as
Penrose
and Godel suggest that consciousness may be due to incompleteness
itself allowing for emergence...
Seehttp://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard
Hi Richard,
I only have one beef with your thesis, you over rely on a
"theory" that has yet to have a single physically testable
prediction! IMHO, it would be better to think of all that super-
geometry as nothing more than beautiful mathematics until that day
that we actually find a squark or photino.
Hofstadter is 100% correct on Gödel.
Lucas and Penrose are incorrect on Gödel.
All details are in "conscience and mechanism".
In fact the löbian machine "naturally" refutes the Gödelian argument
against mechanism.
But, I am OK, for obvious reason for those who have studied sane04 or
my older papers that incompleteness plays a major role in both the
explanation of consciousness and its origin, and the explanation where
the laws of physics come from (and are divided into sharable first
person plural quanta, and the non sharable qualia).
I use Solovay theorem, which gives the strongest precision possible on
Gödel's incompleteness possible, as it characterize the logic of the
true and provable self-reference (G) and the true but non provable
self-referential statement (G*).
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
