On 25 Oct 2012, at 02:56, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote:On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:Hi John, On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:Bruno, especially in my identification as "responding to relations".Now the "Self"? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated levelof thinking, more so than the average (animalic?) mind. - OR: wehave no idea. What WE call 'Self-Ccness' is definitely a humanattribute because WE identify it that way. I never talked to acauliflower to clarify whether she feels like having a self? (Incauliflowerese, of course).My feeling was first that all homeotherm animals have self-consciousness, as they have the ability to dream, easily realted tothe ability to build a representation of one self. Then I haveenlarged the spectrum up to some spiders and the octopi, just byreading a lot about them, looking video.But this is just a personal appreciation. For the plant, let us sayI know nothing, although I supect possible consciousness, relatedto different scalings.The following theory seems to have consciousness, for differentreason (the main one is that it is Turing Universal):x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + xBut once you add the very powerful induction axioms: which say thatif a property F is true for zero, and preserved by the successoroperation, then it is true for all natural numbers. That is theinfinity of axioms:(F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x),with F(x) being any formula in the arithmetical language (and thusdefined with "0, s, +, *),Then you get Löbianity, and this makes it as much conscious as youand me. Indeed, they got a rich theology about which they candevelop maximal awareness, and even test it by comparing thephysics retrievable by that theology, and the observation andinference on their most probable neighborhoods.Löbianity is the treshold at which any new axiom added will createand enlarge the machine ignorance. It is the utimate modestytreshold.Bruno,Might there be still other axioms (which we are not aware of, or atleast do not use) that could lead to even higher states ofconsciousness than we presently have?Yes, there are interesting transfinities below and beyond omega_1^CK(the Kleene Church first non constructive ordinal). This hasplausibly, with comp, some relation with possible consciousnessstates (but that is not obvious and depends on definitions).Also, it isn't quite clear to me how something needs to be added toTuring universality to expand the capabilities of consciousness, ifall consciousness is the result of computation.Gosh! It is only recent, for me, that I even think that universalmachines are already conscious. I thought Lôbianity was needed. Butthen it is basically the same as the consciousness-->self-consciousness type of consciousness "enrichment/delusion". In asense, abstract universality is maximally conscious, maximallyundeluded, or awake, somehow.This is not quite what I meant (I remain undecided on yourproposition that all Turing machines are conscious).

`Not all Turing machines. Only the universal one. And perhaps in a`

`trivial sense (a bit like 0 is a number, as number meant numerous`

`before).`

What I meant is that any Turing machine could perform any computation,

any *universal* Turing machine can do that.

so if all conscious states are the result of computation, then allthat is needed to produce that conscious state is any Turing machine(running the appropriate computation). Therefore, if computation isall that is needed, why do different axioms have to come into it?Why is an induction axiom needed for human consciousness?

`The induction axioms is what gives Löbianity. At that moment, the`

`logic of believability/probability, is governed by G (for the provable`

`by you part) and G* (for the true part about you).`

`And that moment, you have already strong cognitive ability. They are`

`enough to make you understand that you are a universal machine, and`

`you can get the worries, as they can know that they can trash and that`

`they have no guaranty. They know that they have to welcome insecurity`

`as a price for their universal liberty.`

`RA is basically just universal, and still innocent, if you want. PA,`

`which is basically RA + the induction axiom, akready know she is`

`universal, and all the 'shit' which accompany this.`

`It is not necessary for human consciousness, but for any self-`

`consciousness, or reflexive consciousness.`

But Turing universality is cheap and concerns an ability to imitateother machine, not to understand them, so for provability andbeliefs, and knowledge there are transfinite improvement andenlargement possible.We are not just conscious, we differentiate in developing beliefs,and get greater and greater view on truth.I can see how different axioms are needed to justify differentbeliefs, but it isn't so clear to me how they are needed fordifferent conscious states.Unless we are talking about conscious states like of believing 7 isprime because of some other axioms.

`Or believing there is a universe, or there is god, or there is`

`something ineffable. Consciousness state are all true justified`

`(consciously or not) belief. And so they are also knowledge state,`

`even if their content can be relatively false.`

It is like you might be near doing a kind of "Searle error"perhaps. A computation can emulate consciousness, but thecomputation is not conscious, only the person emulated by thatcomputations, she can always progress infinitely (even if"restricted" on the search of arithmetical truth), develop more andmore beliefs and knowledge. Particular universal machines willdevelop particular parts (even if transfinite) of arithmetical truth.But G and G*, that is the modal logic of the provability of theLöbian machines, is a treshold. Despite growing transfinitely on herknowledge(s) of the arithmetical truth, as long as they remain self-referentially correct, they will obey to G and G*, for their theoryof provability. If consistent, they will for ever been able to provethat they are consistent, for example, and they can prove that forthemselves. The abstract theology is invariant despite the evolutionof the arithmetical content of the B in Bp. PA and ZF have verydifferent arithmetical beliefs, but both obeys to G and G*.Consciousness, from the first person perspective is more related to"all computations" going through my states, than any particularcomputations. The living self is not a computer, it is a believer,supported by infinities of computer (by UDA).I am happy you are open to the idea that universal machine are allconscious, it is then, the state of "you" before developing any morebeliefs than those making you universal. Your first personindeterminacy, in that state, is all other possible machine/dreams.I have had a similar idea, that there are some (one?) universalstarting points (states), which lead to all others. Perhaps thiscomputation state is like an empty or null state, or perhaps closeto an infinite all encompassing state.

`OK. We have to succeed in making clearer the comp supervenience`

`thesis. The difficulty is that it is counterintuitive. Consciousness`

`is not related to a state, but to a relative state, involving many`

`computations, notably universal machines, relative universal machines,`

`and the infinity of universal machine in the "physical" background.`

Bruno

The Löbian machine knows that they are universal, and so knows theprice to pay, for "staying consistent", like the possibility ofcrashing, in front of the unknown arithmetical truth.Thanks,You are welcome. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.