On 28 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:29:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things interface with logic - how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, and through what capacity can they express that obedience?

It's the other way around. Language was invented to describe things and logic is just some rules about making inferences in a way such that you don't end up inadvertently contradicting yourself.

Right. That's what I'm getting at. Logic didn't invent consciousness.

OK.




Even if logic could invent something, it wouldn't be able to tell that it had.

Not really.
PA can discover and prove the existence of prime numbers, and can also prove that PA can prove the existence of the prime numbers. In at least a sense, she can know the prime numbers exist, and she can know that she can know that prime numbers exist.


Before arithmetic truths or physical laws can exist, there must first exist the capacity to detect, discern, and participate in sensory experience of some kind.

OK.
And the comp hypothesis suggest to explain or defined the capacity to detect, discern, and participate in sensory experience of some kind by mechanical, or arithmetical (it is equivalent, with CT), relation. The riddle of consciousness is explained by the existence of truth about numbers, that numbers can develop many beliefs about, sometimes true, yet unjustifiable, and in some case knowingly unjustifiable by them.

At the propositional level we inherit for the ideal sound machines two logics of self-reference, one give the provable part of self-reference (G) and the other (G*) give the true, including the non provable, part of self-reference.



That is the only conceivable universal primitive: sense.

Which sense? Mine? Yours? The jumping spider's sense? The computer's sense?

Sorry but it is easier for me to make sense of numbers making sense, than making sense of sense making numbers not making sense.

There is a theory of self-reference for the relative numbers, relative to *probable* universal numbers. Physics origin is explained by that probability calculus on the universal number histories competing for your continuation (from your 1p view).

Comp extends "Darwin and Everett" on arithmetic, somehow. And I don't say the result is the true physics, I say that it is testable.


Bruno





Craig


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/coScMFmqtOIJ .
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