On 25 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:

## Advertising

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchalwrote:On 25 Sep 2013, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:58:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchalwrote:On 24 Sep 2013, at 20:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Monday, September 23, 2013 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:shape belongs to the category of numbers imagination, and withcomp this is given by arithmetical relations.Numbers imagination seem like human imagination to me.Nice. That is a reason for taking number's talk seriously.I had more of 'numbers imagination = pathetic fallacy' meaning inmind.OK, but then you beg the question, and just repeat: I believe thatcomp is wrong, without explaining why.It's not that I believe comp is wrong, I just understand why itwould be wrong but seem like it is right. I've tried to explain whymany, many times - it's pretty straightforward I think: Computationis, in all cases, a representation system which is used to automatesensory-motive interactions rather than generate sensation itself.It rides on the back of aesthetic experience as a figure, or set offunctional steps, but it has no aesthetic agenda of its own.

`Nor could a brain or a body. That is a reason to move toward the idea`

`that consciousness is primitive, but this is "consciousness of the`

`gap". It does not satisfy me.`

It's not a matter of belief, because I wouldn't care one way oranother about whether the beauty of mechanism or the beauty ofawareness is primary, it's just that over the course of developingthe hypothesis that I have put together, I have come to realize whyit happens to be the case that representation can only exist withinsensory presentation and not the other way around. This post I wroteyesterday actually relates... http://multisenserealism.com/2013/09/24/diogenes-revenge-cynicism-semiotics-and-the-evaporating-standard/

`You confuse "sensory presentation" as conceived by the humans, and`

`what we can reasonably infer as being primitive, and sharable by all`

`of us, like I think arithmetical truth is (and it is for most people).`

It is not. What is important is to not impose certainties onother. To make clear what we assume.That's what I am trying to do - make clear what you assume. If youstart out granting numbers imagination, then you have already haveconsciousness, and have no need for comp.Of course. Comp is an assumption concerning consciousness andcomputations. Then the *conclusion* is that the theory ofeverything is elementary arithmetic.Buy everything that is not obviously elementary arithmetic can justbe presumed to be part of numbers imagination.No, you have to do the math and verify that it predicts correctlywhat we see. Up to now, comp predicts the MW, with a quantumstructure, and a core symmetrical structure (but we have not yetreally its linear aspect, nor the measure istelf, etc.).Whatever it predicts correctly would validate arithmetictautologically, while everything that it cannot predict (likeflavors and colors) can still just be categorized as numbersimagination.

`Not at all. The prediction must be based on the precise math of`

`number's imagination.`

Comp is not a theory of everything,Indeed. It is a philosophical or theological principle orassumption. Then, if we make that assumption, the theorem is thatthe theory of everything is given by arithmetic or anything Turingequivalent.It's still only a theory of Turing equivalence, which doesn'tinclude any epistemic access to the question of what lies beyond.

`Epistemic access is explained by the self-reference ability of the`

`universal numbers.`

its a dualism of everything computational vs everything imagined bycomputations.Imagined by people supported by infinities of computations. But theimagination is reduced itself to arithmetical relations (even finiteone, now), so it is a monism.If it could be reduced, then why wouldn't it be? It's still adualism of that which is computation and that which can be reducedfrom computation. The question is, where does computation inflateitself to in the first place?

`Computations exist, like prime number exists. It is not dualism, it is`

`elementary math derivation. Then we get an octalism (and many dualism)`

`in the epistemology of the universal numbers.`

Maybe you can get a set of variables with unknown values, but whywould they have a smell or sound?Because if they didn't, you would die when saying "yes" to thedoctor.Yes, you would.Because you assume non-comp, but I still don't see why. Because flavors exist, but comp has no reason to imagine them.Well, the one saying "yes" to the doctor does have a reason to hopefor it, and he can hope that the evidences (the Turing emulabilityof biophysical known object) are not misleading.But we already know they are misleading, otherwise there would be nodualism concept to begin with.

?

The truth or falsity of comp is out of my topic. I am interested only in the refutability of comp.That may already be biasing the evaluation of comp beyond repair.Consciousness is not about refutability,Doing a precise theory is about making a refutable theory.Depends if the theory is about consciousness or not. Consciousnesscan only be a baseless assertion. It is the base of all assertionand the assertion of all bases.You assume consciousness to be fundamental, and matter. That iscoherent with your non-comp theory, but is not an argument againstcomp.Comp can't have an argument against it because it is tautological.My theory explains why that is. A sufficiently reductionist mindsetwill fall prey to its own absolutism. Anthropomorphic andmechanemorphic absolutism will both use their own toy models of theuniverse which reflect back the bias that goes into it. If you putthe universe into a mathematical box, then you will get a responsefrom the universe as it describes itself on that level. To argueagainst comp, you must poke out your eyes and try to prove to theblind man that sight exists.it is about perceiving and participating. Refutability is a secondorder logic derived from that. If you use the weak standard ofrefutability, then you cannot be surprised when we take a puppetfor a person.I can hardly be surprised, because that is mainly what I assume. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRluXBa4e8Cute, but not quite convincing for the present topic. Hehe 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.