On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:05:46 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Oct 2013, at 06:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:54:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the restaurant, is delicious. Why would it be delicious, assuming COMP. How could the primary modalities of things be good or bad assuming COMP? I know most people here think Craig is a hand waver, but I honestly cannot understand how qualia emerge from quantia, including their(meaning, my experiences) magically "emerge" from the many quants that Bruno's idea seems to require.

Emergence is a description of how we think about our models of the world - not something in the world. So Bruno has a theory in which some parts are true but incommunicable. He identifies these with qualia because that is (supposedly) a characteristic of qualia. That's actually how all scientific theories work: you hypothesize a model, including connections to observations and see if it has explanatory and predictive power.

Isn't the the characteristic of "true but incommunicable" math a rather thin premise to suggest that the incommunicability of some truth = the appearance of flavors, colors, sounds, etc?

"true but incommunicable" applies to three hypostases, and thus get three different logics. How do you know in advance that one of them will not throw some light on the qualia problem? Try to answer this without begging the question.

I think that that it is the failure of logic to access qualia in any way which throws light on the nature of qualia. Experience cannot logically follow from rules,

From only logical rules? Right.

But logical rules + addition and multiplication? Quite the contrary, you get the dreams, the semantical fixed points, accepting standard definition.

Don't confuse logic, which strictly speaking has no subject domain, and arithmetic, which talk about something which seems to transcend us and is non axiomatizable.

but rules can logically follow from experience.

That might happen, but logic+number is more conceptually simple than experience, and as I said, I want to explain what I understand the less from what I have a better understanding.

In order for any rule to be followed, it must be sensed in a way which motivates a voluntary effect on some level of description.

Few will agree with this.

If it were otherwise, and metaphysical rules could impregnate experience/physics from on high, then experience and physics would both be logically redundant.

I can accept this. It is redundant like theorems are redundant in the their theories. You betray that you are against any theory of experience and physics. You refuse the very idea that we might be able to grasp where experience and physics come from. The fact that it seems impossible, is made invalid, as machines can already understand that this has to look impossible.

In a universe made of rules ruling over each other in silent and invisible information pantomime, there would be no logical use for qualia.

Qualia have many roles, from chunking information to creating the sharable quanta appearance. Qualia are unavoidable, in comp + classical theory of knowledge and belief.

To say that we should assume that there is a use and that physical experiences can follow metaphysical-theoretic rules is a worthwhile exercise, certainly, and I think that it does shed some light on qualia, but I think that it will always make more sense to put the head in front of the tail, i.e., that counting apples is a function of our wanting to know about apples,

Sure, when you buy apples for the dinner or something.

not a function of numbers wanting to know about themselves through us and the apples.


If that difference between head and tail cannot be proved mathematically, that does not surprise me, for the same reason that physics cannot locate free will or awareness. The head can see the tail but the tail can only see the head as another part of itself....fallacy of the instrument.




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