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

## Advertising

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: > > > Your servitor: > > 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 forgranted.

`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'tnecessary 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. Ifyou don't have a mind-body distinction, then you are in a non-ordinary state of consciousness which does not commute to otherbeings 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 makessome kind of sense with in some sensory experience or is itself asensory 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 nopresence or effect without a participant who is in some way subjectto that presence or effect. Being present and subject to an effectis 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 adoorway to a world in which actual experience comes from the idea ofcounting. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.