On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter.

We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside.

My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it.

Bruno,
Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time?
Richard

Quantum Deism. Cool.

It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices?

You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics.

Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation.

The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only support the person who has such stable illusions.



I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'.

The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp and Bp & p. It works very well, including the non communicability of the qualia, the feeling that our soul is related to our body and bodies in general, etc.




The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone.

*that* should be illegal.



While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless decoration.

Why? Torturers know very well how the effect is unpleasant for the victim.


It only seems to work retrospectively when we take perception and participation for granted. If we look at it prospectively instead, we see that a universe founded on logic has no possibility of developing perception or participation,

Universe are not founded on logics. Even arithmetic is not founded on logic. You talk like a 19th century logician. Logicism has failed since, even for numbers and machines. The fact that you seem unaware of this might explain your prejudices on machines and numbers.




as it already includes in its axioms an assumption of quantitative sense.


Comp is mainly an assumption that some quantitative relation can support qualitative relations locally. But you cannot indentify them, as they obey different logic, like Bp and Bp & p, for example. The quality appears thanks to the reference to truth (a non formalizable notion).



Machines, as conceived by comp, are already sentient without any kind of tangible, experiential, or even geometric presentation. If you have discrete data, why would you add some superfluous layer of blur?

We don't add it.
The logic of self-reference explains why we cannot avoid it.




let us compare with nature, and so we can progress. You seem to start from the answers. You can do that if the goal is just contemplation, but then you become a poet. That is nice, but is not the goal of the scientists.

My only goal is to make the most sense that can be made.

By discarding the idea that machines can make sense. You get less sense.

Bruno



Craig


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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