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
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 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 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.