On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:46:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2013, at 13:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Qualia are generated,
>
>
> With comp the qualia are not generated. They are arithmetical truth seen
> from some point of view. They cannot even been defined, but it can be shown
> that they obeys to some laws (including the maws of not being definable).
>
>
>
> but only by other qualia. By pointing out that qualia can have no possible
> function, I am clarifying that in a universe defined purely by function,
> that qualia cannot be possible.
>
>
> This does not follow. Qualia might be epiphenomenal.
>
Whether qualia is epiphenomenal or not is up to the participant. That is
their role from 3p perspective, to select which sensory affect they prefer
or allow to influence their motive output, and thus contribute to public
realism. Free will is the active modality of qualia, turning
superpositioned epiphenomena into thermodynamically committed phenomena.
> But this does not follow for another reason: qualia have a function/role,
> although in the intensional (program related) sense, and not really in the
> usual extensional one (set of input-outputs). So it is preferable to refer
> to computation instead of function, which is an ambiguous term in computer
> science.
>
What role could qualia have to a program that would not be accomplished by
other quantitative means? Any number, for example, can be used as a precise
and absolutely unique identifier - why would a colorful name be used
instead of that? If we don't add in high level names for our own benefit,
by default strings like SIDs and GUIDs are easier to use.
>
>
>
> What this means is that the universe cannot be defined purely by function.
> It cannot be a motor, machine, computer, zombie, or set of all arithmetic
> truths.
>
>
> This is vague. I can agree (in comp) and disagree (in comp).
>
> If 'universe' denotes the big whole, by definition it has no input nor
> output, and so is equivalent with the unique function from nothing to
> nothing. The empty function = { }.
>
That's only if you assume a number system based on a null default. I am
using the totality as a default. The universe is the set of all inputs and
outputs; every significant function (not every function, since the universe
is not a nonsense generator of accidental sense like UD, but an elitist
aesthetic agenda which chooses which functions to formally pay attention
to/materialize and which to leave as theoretical potentials).
> So "universe" is already an intensional term, and should be handled with
> intensional tools, like computer science, modal logic, etc. Then assuming
> comp, we can explain how the physical universe appearance is given by
> internal modalities, some locally sharable (quanta), and some not locally
> sharable (qualia).
>
These tools are only useful to organize aesthetic phenomena which already
exist (insist). No logic or Doxastic framework can ever account for qualia.
Who cares if we know all of the things that satisfy some relation to the
experience of seeing red? That doesn't let the blind see red.
Craig
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
