On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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.


Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of?

They are the internal view of person when supported by infinities of computations, which exists arithmetically. They are not made of something, they are computer semantical fixed points, to be short.







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.


I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of all B, Bp, or p.

They are independent of the theories of course, like both matter and energy does not depend on the string "E = mc^2". But it is not because we theorize something that it disappears. The relation between p, Bp, Bp & p, Bp & Dt & p (feeling) are just unavoidable arithmetical truth.







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.

I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for them to use it.

The frontier of freedom is when you harm the freedom of the others.




My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing Doxastic about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to make it stop. There is no programmatic equivalent.

There is. Do anything to survive.




Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in order to avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the window for no logical reason.

Because it is not (yet) in our interest to have a robot doing anything for surviving, but Mars Rover is a good respectable logical ancestors.







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.

That's what I'm saying - you assume that there is a such thing as 'unpleasant'.

Yes. In the theory, losing self-referential correctness is a good candidate for being unpleasant for a machine programmed to survive by all means. At least in the short term. Pain is body's protection.




There is no such thing as unpleasant for a computer, there is only off and on, and off, off, on, and off, on, off...

Arithmetical relation are full of chaos and critical states. You can't reduce it to some level, from inside.






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.

Ok, what is arithmetic founded on?

That is the necessary mystery. That is why I start from it. I can only hope you agree with

x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

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








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).


I don't disagree that quality likely relates to truth association, but truth association is not necessary or sufficient to explain its appearance.

The fact is that Bp & p leads to an asymmetrical knower, without a name, associated to each machine.




I would say that even truth is incorrect - qualia is experience of experience, grounded in the totality of experience (which could be called truth in one sense, but it is more than that).

Sigma_1 truth is big enough, to get more than truth from inside. Look at the UD, by assuming comp, if only to see the point. Nobody asks you to believe that comp is true.






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.


The logic of self-reference already includes the assumption of self to begin with.

No, it can be defined in the 3p, in arithmetic. It exists as a theorem in computer science, and yes it is responsible in part for the mess in Platonia.



You assume a perspective and orientation which is defined by fiat based on our experience of selfhood.

Not at all, but you have to study a bit of computer science to see the point. It is related to the Dx = "xx" trick, and many other diagonalizations.







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.

Machines can make sense *for us* but they can't themselves sense.

How can you know that. The knower has some difficulty, but he can bet on a level of description.



That's why they are useful, because they only do what we design them to do.

Like slaves. Which explains they might look dumb for awhile. It is not their fault.



If machines have sense, then we are all slave owners practicing unprecedented cruelty and neglect to billions of machines.

Why? machines are better treated than humans, by the humans, today. Except for very old cars, and planes, there are no evidence of machine's suffering, if only because they have no universal goals, like "survive at all price", or "grow and multiply", or perhaps just z_n+1 := z_n + c, c rational complex numbers.

Bruno





Craig


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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/HXt277eT8G0J .
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to