Computation only exists on the public side of physics, or rather quantification is publication. The private side of physics can be computable or not, depending on our intention. Here's something that I posted on today that relates (don't be thrown by the mystical shape, it's just a familiar way of laying it all out): http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/21/multisense-tree-of-life/ Notice the cyan and yellow paths at the bottom, and their relation to the RGB paths between sense and Qualia, Motive, and Quanta. The cyan path is a difference by degree between blue and green. Knowing blue and green, cyan can be predicted with a quantitative approach. On the opposite side, the yellow path illustrates that there must be an alternative to the quantitative approach, since yellow is not predictable from green and red. We know yellow as being halfway between green and red purely by experience, not from any possible formulation. Thus, the authenticity of the sense motivated by qualia is art rather than science, significance rather than entropy. *Quanta:* Measure ‘stops time’ figuratively and creates entropy as space literally. *Qualia:* Perception ‘elides (e-liminates) distance’ (joins ‘matters’ figuratively) and creates significance literally as time. > If the brain is not computable then there are physical process > in it which are not computable. It may be the case; there is no a > priori reason to assume that physics is computable, and the notion of > non-computable functions is a legitimate one in mathematics. However, > there is nothing in human behaviour that gives any indication of the > computability of the physics in the brain. It's not about human behavior, it's about human feeling. Behavior is only known to us after it has been frozen quantitatively. Feeling is prior to computation - although in our case, as an animal, it's confusing because our personal feeling is diffracted as sub-personal feelings as well. When we look at the activity of a brain, we see the computations after the fact of these sub-personal feelings. There is nothing > conceptually or empirically in "sense" or "entropy" or the other terms > you use to indicate whether the physics underlying them is computable > or not. > Physics is not part of computation, computation is part of physics, and physics is sense. Computation is automation of measurement. Measurement has a physical effect, which is to hide the measurer. This becomes an intractable problem when trying to measure the measurement directly. See if you can find this interesting. http://24.media.tumblr.com/782ebd9e4402a824306e64ec89d95b43/tumblr_mqavewIDtQ1qeenqko1_500.jpg Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.