On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:31, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:24:51AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:


OK.
(and I think it follows from comp, but I would not insist on this,
because we don't need this to understand that physics comes from the
numbers, and it might be a too big novelty for many people, who
seems very attached to their particular instantiations).


So you "think it", which means you don't have a proof.

Yes.


Nevertheless,
you do think there must be some strong indicators why a continuous
(well at least local changes only) conscious path exists between all
conscious states. What is that?

By what I called (with a wrong terming) agnosologic path: where each time you lost a mental feature, you lost also the mental reference to it, so you "don't see any difference".

This involves amnesia, and I don't use that in UDA or AUDA. But I can also "think" and "discuss" like most participant in the list, on the larger domain than my thesis !



It looks like the "God of the machines" is so cool, that you might
have some choice to keep some particularist intermediate realities,
before killing completely the "little ego". Something similar is
described by Tibetan buddhist, although buddhists would emphasize
usually the need to eventually liberate your higher self from any
"little ego". We have the choice. Nothing urged. Shortcut exists,
but no one enforces them.


Bhuddism is not COMP.

Sure, but I made precise an interpretation of Plotinus in arithmetic (and the machine's discourse), and comp is obviously close to Platon, the mystic, and many buddhist schools (and chinese taoist also). We can compare them.
There are  books comparing Plotinus and the buddhists.


I don't see why appealing to Bhuddist ideas
helps here.

They address the questions addressed here.



It's just another argument from authority.

I agree *if* it was an argument. I think I just made a comparison, and the appreciation of some similarity.

Comp makes us expecting the most honest introspective humans to be close to the discourse of the ideally self-referentially correct machines. Hard to resist to compare. I was thinking of the idealist buddhist schools, or the neutral monist approaches (in our terms).

And, (and please don't take this has an argument), some salvia report helps to figure out also that idea too, at least that there is only one person (among the humans/machines, not necessarily among the gods(*)!)

I don't think buddhists tackle explicitly the question of a continuum of consciousness in between any mental states, but they do develop notion of persons which can help toward conceptualizing such possibility.

Bruno

(*) (Here a simple definition of (machine's) god is: a non computable set (or function, number, combinator, etc.) Most arithmetically correct non turing emulable entities are also Löbian. Machines have very rich and surprising (to me at least) theologies (unprovable truth).





--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
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.

Reply via email to