On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:01:25 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel 
> > >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable   
> > "PHYSICS"? 
> > >> 
> > >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable 
> > >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. 
> > >> 
> > >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense 
> > >> contradict such deterministic law. 
> > >> 
> > >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts 
> > >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding 
> > >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into 
> > >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions", 
> > >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all 
> > >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- 
> > >> constellation. 
> > > 
> > > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me. 
> > > 
> > > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the- 
> > > gap, etc. 
> > 
> > No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a 
> > question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of 
> > machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a 
> > matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the 
> > introspective machine. 
> > 
> > Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed), 
>
>
> You might be dreaming. 
>

Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body. 
Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
 

>
>
>
> > but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that   
> > appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence.   
> > It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be   
> > precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it   
> > the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the   
> > possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of   
> > experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories   
> > in parallel or phase-shift. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be 
> > > anything more or less than sense. 
> > 
> > This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what 
> > is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable 
> > feature like consciousness, etc. 
> > 
> > There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most   
> > self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full   
> > stop. 
>
> Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if   
> only because it escapes definition. 
>

Communicability would be redundant though. Sense has no reason to 
communicate since any receiver would not be able to communicate unless it 
could already sense.
 

> So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. 


The theory of 1p is easy, you just have to imagine the opposite of 3p.
 

> It is an important data, and   
> its immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue. 
> Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why   
> machines looking inward describes something which looks very much like   
> that. 
>

I think it would look the same if the machines weren't looking inward at 
all. The same vending machine can sell cigarettes, candy bars, live ostrich 
eggs, or just empty space. It doesn't impress me that it doesn't know what 
the things that it sells are or where they come from.
 

>
>
>
>
>
> > All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory   
> > context. 
>
> You bet. It is OK. 
>
>
Sure, but the other bet, that there can be some kind of existence outside 
of sense, then brings in the implausibility of sense and the necessity for 
a homunculus regress between sensory and (hypothetical) nonsensory 
phenomena.  


>
> > There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of   
> > presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity.   
> > Justification is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate   
> > sense experience. You are looking for something that you have   
> > already found but won't accept it. 
>
> I found it in my head, and I show that all universal machine "looking   
> in their head" can find something quite similar. 
>

? Everything can find sense.
 

>
> You are just insulting the machine, by what looks like prejudice, as   
> you admit not trying to study them. 
>

To me that's just pointing to the pet rock and saying 'you're hurting his 
feelings. You should study geology.'
 

>
>
>
> > I am showing you *all of this* is sense, and you are responding that   
> > you are looking for something *else*. 
>
> Not really. I want to understand the origin of sense. 
>

There is no origin of sense, because "origin" is already an expectation 
within sense that supervenes on many others (succession, causality, 
termination, hindsight, significance, etc). Sense is not even something 
that "is", it is the potential 'to seem'. All that can be experienced is 
ultimately original and is the origin of sense.


>
>
> > If you accept the premise however (yes, doctor of primordial   
> > identity pansensitivity) then you must accept that it is   
> > ontologically impossible that there could be anything *else*, by   
> > definition. 
>
> I want my proof to be mechanically checkable. I play the game of   
> science, you don't. 
>

It's mutually exclusive if your proof refers to consciousness. It is to say 
"I want my water to be completely dehydrated".
 

> I have no problem with that, except when you draw negative conclusion.   
> Humans are used to make negative prose on possible others.  To make   
> prose and get negative proposition is, with all my naive frankness,   
> bad philosophy. 
> Jewish, Black, Indians, Women, Gay, Marijuana smokers, are often   
> victims of that type of philosophy. 
>

It's sophistry though, because nobody is more of a threat to AI systems 
than those who are torturing them in their development labs. When an AI 
scientists quits and becomes a crusader for AI rights than your view might 
be more convincing. As it is, you are in the lab with Dr. Mengele, and 
telling me that the patients are entitled to the same respect that a human 
patient deserves.


>
> > 
> > Unlike Comp, it does not assert the supremacy of arithmetic truth,   
> > but then add in dreaming numbers, resurrection by mechanical   
> > incantation, duplicated persons, machines emulating other machines   
> > which think they aren't machines (even though Comp prohibits any   
> > possibility of what else there would be besides machines.). 
>
> Not at all. Arithmetical Truth is full of gods, and daemons, which are   
> non-machines. 


If there are non-machines that are gods, why would there need to be 
machines also who are people? Again it seems completely unfalsifiable. Comp 
keeps morphing from 'UMs can emulate consciousness' to 'gods and daemons 
exist (who are conscious) which are not machines. You say 'UMs believe 
this' yet you run on a UM that does not believe that anymore. Or you can 
meditate on your own superimposed belief and disbelief, yet without 
realizing that by doing so you are contradicting what you say UMs believe.
 

> Comp is a vaccine against the reductionism of the   
> finite, and the infinite. To understand comp is to understand the   
> abyssalness of the mindscape. Comp prohibits nothing, not even 0=1,   
> although we better should hope it is not the case. 
>

That's why Comp is not a view to the authentic and singular truth of the 
uni-verse, but the opposite. Comp reflects, impersonates, multiplies, and 
makes generic. It is neither uni, nor verse, but rather nihil-phoria. 
Instead of feeling that can overwhelm with terror or ecstasy, there is a 
toy model: hypostases of self-reference. Modal logics and recombinatory 
switch positions. 

Like any divination oracle, the UM will deliver interesting information in 
a voice with an uncanny ring. It is not nothing. That is clear. It does 
reflect deep insight, just as a Ouija board or I Ching (try it: 
http://www.eclecticenergies.com/iching/virtualcoins.php)

Here's what I got just now:

25. Without Pretense 

Not plowing yields uncultivated land. 
Thus, it is beneficial to have a goal to move to.

Not taking action to make things happen, so nothing happens. It is better 
to work towards a goal.

Pretty good I think. Without pretense. It perfectly describes back to me my 
own intention here. I do not try to impose an agenda, I only show you what 
I am looking at. The super-personal reflections which can work through 
inanimate objects without turning those objects into literal subjects.


>
> > Comp may mistake self referential logic for a self, 
>
> Comp does not mistake the self-referential logic for the self. There   
> is no reason why comp would do such a big mistake. 
>

So you say, but I don't believe it.
 

>
>
>
> > but I don't. I have no problem a sentence that we read as "this   
> > sentence is lying" as a trivial syntactic contradiction rather than   
> > a profound puzzle that reveals the ontology of consciousness. 
>
> That's Tarski. You need both Gödel and Tarski to get the Bp & p versus   
> Bp nuances. 
>
> What I understand of Gödel makes the same kind of point. Incompleteness 
means that whatever rules are used to make a mathematical system create 
their own blind spots when it comes to proving those rules. You are the 
only one that I know of who interpret Gödel's incompleteness as an 
affirmation of arithmetic supremacy rather than an indictment of its 
limitations on discovering its limitation. But Gödel was a person. The 
mathematical truth was not visible in the math alone, he had to wrestle it 
out. Unlike a UM, we *can* appreciate our own limitation and 
meta-limitations more than a machine can, because sense is transparent and 
flexible rather than rigid and opaque.

 
>
> > 
> > 
> > To start from sense is like to start from God. This answers nothing 
> > (even if there is a God). 
> > 
> > It is to start before God, and before arithmetic, truth, and even   
> > before 'starting'. Your are still vastly underestimating the hubris   
> > that I intend. Sense = the Absolute, means that there has never been   
> > anything else, and there can never be anything else. 
>
> It looks like the arithmetical truth. 
>
> What makes you so sure that it is not arithmetical truth? 
>

Because if it was arithmetical truth we wouldn't need flavor. Numbers make 
sense to organize flavors, but flavors do nothing for numbers which can 
already inform each other (instantly, and non-locally to boot).
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > On the contrary, comp explains 100% of matter, and 99,9% of sense, but 
> > explain 100% of why it remains 0.01% of a necessary non comprehensible 
> > aspect of the inside first person view. 
> > 
> > The entire universe fits in the 0,1% of sense that comp fails to   
> > find. Everything else is a reflection of that sense. Comp is inside   
> > out. 
>
> Meaning it is the same thing. Except with comp the sun in law enjoy   
> the steak, where with your sense "theory" he does not, sadly. 
>

Its not the same thing. The horse can pull the cart, but the cart cannot 
pull the horse. Any one cart can pull another horse inside of it, iff that 
cart has a horse pulling it. It's a matter of seeing that on the absolute 
level, the first difference is that of the head and the tail, since it is 
only the head who can tell the difference that the tail makes.
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > Anyway, the solution is testable, so you should be happy that we might 
> > refute comp. 
> > 
> > Comp may be testable (using consciousness) but consciousness is not   
> > testable using comp. 
>
> Consciousness is not testable, using what you want. 
>

Sure it is. We know that we have slept deeply. We know when we have lost 
consciousness.

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.

Reply via email to