# Re: Against Mechanism

```
On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:```
```
```
```

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> 1) Arithmetic (comp)
>
> :)
>
> Bruno
>
> To which I add:
>
> 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise
> to comp.

OK. But this is just to make things more complex for avoiding comp.

```
No, it reveals that comp takes the machine that it runs on for granted.
```
```
Not at all. The machine existence, and its relative running existence, are theorem in the tiny arithmetic.
```

```
Comp doesn't need to be avoided when you realize that it isn't necessary in the first place.
```
By postulating what we want to explain.

```
```
You get the whole unsolved mind-body problem back.

```
It isn't a problem, it is the fundamental symmetry of Universe. If you don't have a mind-body distinction, then you are in a non- ordinary state of consciousness which does not commute to other beings in public space.
```
```
You take the problem, and then say it is the solution. That's the god- of-the-gap mistake. We have of course already discuss this. You are just saying "don't search". It looks *you* are talking everything for granted at the start, in the theory.
```

```
```
With the CTM ( a
better name for comp), that which perceives, understands, participates
and discovers comp is explained entirely (except 1% of its
consciousness) by the only two laws:

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

Laws? What are those? How do they govern?
```
```
```
Kxy is a shorhand for ((K x) y), and you are told by the first equation above that for all x and y, ((K x) y) = x.
```
```
So ((K K) K) = K, or to use again the shorthand (which consists in eleimnainating the left parentheses):
```KKK = K.

For the same reason

KSK = S
KSS = S
K(S K) K = (S K)
etc.

For example SKK is an identity operator:

SKKx = Kx(Kx), by the second equation,  = x, by the first equation.

```
S and K behavior is ruled by the two axioms above, and gives already a Turing universal language/system/machine.
```

```
How do these formulas become perception, understanding, participation, and discovery?
```
```
By comp, it exist an SK- combinator which emulates my perception, understanding, participation and discovery. How? By explorartion, self- reference, memorisation, ... that kind of things. Why qualia? Perhaps by the fact that combinators, or numbers, machines, programs, when looking inward, get unjustifiable bunch of information, including unexpressible one.
```

```
I know what sense is, because everything that I can experience makes some kind of sense with in some sensory experience or is itself a sensory experience.
```
```
OK. But if we can use the directly obvious at the metalevel, does not mean we can't explain that very use from a simpler level.
```

```
'Two Laws' is an idea which makes intellectual sense but has no presence or effect without a participant who is in some way subject to that presence or effect. Being present and subject to an effect is sense.
```
```
I can't agree more. I appreciate your intuition on the first person. What you say here is the base of defining knowledge of p by a belief in p in case p is true. Kp = Bp & p, with p arithmetical, and B too. So any particular knowlegde will be arithmetical, despite Kp is not definable in one strike, in arithmetic. This entails that no machine can know who she "really" is. She can only give a 3p description of herself or a summary of it (like an identity card).
```

```
```

or if you prefer:

x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1

x *0 = 0
x*(y + 1) = x*y + x

By adding the perceiver, we put marmalade on the (red) pill, an
unnecessary magic.

The perceiver does not have to be added, it is impossible to remove.
```
```

```
Keep is mind that I am a scientist, or if you prefer, I am simple minded. I expect a theory to be given by what we assume. The theorems will show what is emerging from what we have assumed. If you do not add the perceiver, then tell me precisely what you assume, and how you derive the perceiver from it.
```
```
In such complex subject, it is very useful to put ALL the cards on the table. That is why I assume a bit of logic, the natural numbers, addition and multiplication, and then, using comp at the metalevel, I show that we need nothing more, and that adding anything more is a sort of treachery, which can deprive the natural quanta/qualia distinction to get derived from self-reference.
```

```
You are looking at a blackboard in the sky and deciding that it is a doorway to a world in which actual experience comes from the idea of counting. Counting is an experience. Computing requires computers. Computers require sense.
```
I continue to be,
Craig
```
```
You continue to be a good phenomenologist and a bad metaphysician, imo.

```
I would not care so much if you didn't become a consciousness- eliminativist with respect to material and immaterial machines.
```
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to