On Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:25:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On 20 July 2013 10:57, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:21:42 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> >> If a dog started talking in full English sentences without 
> >> >> manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the 
> >> >> physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever 
> or 
> >> >> controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable 
> then 
> >> >> it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a 
> >> >> computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real 
> dog. 
> >> >> I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial 
> either. 
> >> >> It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog 
> >> >> physiology. 
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in 
> >> > physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be 
> able 
> >> > replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the 
> >> > characters 
> >> > in a movie can change their own script. 
> >> 
> >> It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the 
> >> movie if the universe is causally closed. 
> > 
> > 
> > The physics outside the movie is sensory-motive. The production of the 
> movie 
> > has voluntary intention (will) and involuntary unintention (cause). The 
> > movie strips out the former locally (through thermodynamic 
> irreversibility, 
> > loss of entropy), while perception (sense) reconstitutes it absolutely 
> > (significance, gain of solitrophy (entropy+signficance). There's yer 
> dark 
> > energy. 
> But it's all physics, and either the physics is computable or it 
> isn't.

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):


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 

*Quanta:* Measure ‘stops time’ figuratively and creates entropy as space 
*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. 


> -- 
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to