On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2013 10:14:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:43:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:14:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Computers don't use symbols.
>
> ?
>
>
>> They use physics,
>
> ???
>
> You have been less Aristotelian in some other posts.
>
> If I build a computer out of gears, does it use physics? What
> symbols does it use?
it will use physics, and the program which run will use some symbols,
for example painted numbers like on the difference engine by Babbage.
The program can't see painted numbers though. How can it use them?
Well, actually those numbers are for a human debugger, as the
program use only the gears, like a mechanical clock.
That's my point :) Computers don't use symbols, symbols are for
human debuggers.
yes, but only jokingly so.
But if it needs to use such symbols, he will use third person
sensors, which are just some measuring apparatus.
Haha.. you have just reduced God to 'some measuring apparatus', and
made the janitor king of the universe.
?
I didn't refer to God.
Why would a computer ever need to use sensors? It is quite happy to
run in a loop for a thousand years. It is we, the human debuggers,
who might want to attach devices to extend the machine's engagement
with *our* human aesthetic world. The computer doesn't care about
sense, because it's unconscious. It is perpetually under anesthetic.
What you say is correct, but only in a relative sense. We have
discussed this already (with the simulation of the typhoon capable of
making a virtual person feeling wet).
Let us try not being in a loop ourselves!
Then he will not see, but the seeing will be made by the person (if
there is one) enacted by that program.
That's an assumption that there is such a thing as computationally
enacted person. If a program can function without such a person, or
proto person, then why should it choose to enact one? Who is doing
the enacting of a person if not a digital person?
The first person, which is not something entirely digital, as it is
infinitely many computations, selected through consciousness.
I agree they are related, but the relation is person = fundamental
experience, computer = derived non-experience.
Indeed.
So we agree that aesthetic personhood is more fundamental than
computation,
I meant 'more fundamental than the physical computer'.
Then our personhood is more fundamental but only from our first person
point of view, which arise from the (immaterial) computations, which
arise from + and *.
yet you say that persons are enacted by programs? That's a
contradiction, right?
False, see just above.
I'm open to it being the reverse,
I am afraid you are. That's the Aristotelian delusion (in case comp
is true).
No, I mean I'm open to counter-arguments...I'm not saying that
nobody can disagree with me.
So there is hope.
Why would non-human people be different?
OK, you are right. I wrote to quickly. If comp is correct the
physics is the same for all conscious entities. (But salvia keeps
contradicting me on this issue and I don't know what to think about
that!).
Heheh. I liked Nitrous Oxide, myself. Never tried saliva. It looks
kind of sloppy from the videos.
Salvia can provide a curious hallucination, which, even as an
hallucination, seems to be an impossible thing to experience or
remember. It is close to a total mystery for me.
It is interesting to realize how much altered a consciousness state
can be.
But unlike most drugs, it is not euphoric. It is classified as
dysphoric, and most people are very uneasy with that experience.
As I explained sometimes ago to Stephen King, non-well-foundness
appears naturally, in many places in computer science, and so is very
interesting, but it does not need to be postulated.
Your posts on your blog are not really intelligible to me. Sorry.
Postulating it is really only a disclaimer - that what this refers
to is intentionally using a set which includes itself. The real
substance of what I'm postulating is in the nested relation, where
all x is not only simply x, but also it is a continuum of becoming
x by its negative universality.
You should try to explain this like I was a nine years old.
Ok, let's say that the universe is only the visible spectrum. If we
wanted a really Absolutely complete definition of one color in the
spectrum - let's say blue, then we would want to reflect the fact
that blueness includes all of its potential relations with all of
the colors that are not blue. Blue and red have a certain relation.
Blue plays a certain role in blue, red, and green, etc.
That set of {all color relations between blue and any non-blue
color} we could call the artistic or poetic blue. It is super-
personal and allows all blue associations to freely commute.
That goes at the top of the integral. It's the maximum number of
blue associations. The bottom of the integral is the opposite sense
of blue, which is how blue stands on its own in the most literal
terms - like how an average person sees electromagnetic wavelength
of 500nm.
That integral itself, and here's the tricky part, is nested as well.
So it's:
unambiguous blue
{scientific blue}---------------{artistic blue}
| |
|_______________________________________|
|
|
blue
Think of it as a monadology extension. For every blue, there is an
implication of all that blue can be and cannot be, and there is an
implication of only one thing that blue can be. In between the two
is the continuum of each and every instance of what blue actually
has been.
In my analysis, comp can only hit the ends of the continuum. It can
compute a function that is used as blue would be, and it can contact
the arithmetic truth of all the possible relations between that
function and all other functions, but it cannot get inside the
continuum. It has the alphabet, and it has the entire contents of
the internet, but it doesn't have any reason to write about
anything. It has no events to tie together the elemental and the
universal, or rather, it has no entropy to separate them.
To string negative assertion in a too fuzzy theoretical context. I
can't really follow you.
Bruno
Each aspect of x is defined by the difference between every other
identity (not x) and what they cause x to become in their local
frame of reference.
I was trying to explain 'artistic blue' here - the sum total of all
poetic combination potentials between blue and not blue.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
