On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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
> >>
> >> 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.

In platonia, yes. You can survive without publishing, but you have to wait for heaven. Hereby, you need to communicate, because it is the job. For this you need to start from notions that your audience has already study, so that you can share initial statements and reason from them.

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

Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not saying one word.

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.

That's a fuzzy unclear oversimplification.

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

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.

This remind me a Joke.
Hardy: "-Do you think a machine can think?"
Laurel: "-hmm... I don't think ...."
Hardy: "I am not asking if *you* can think, but if *machine* can think!"

The machine knows what she is selling. I was saying that the machines already know that if you decide that she is not thinking, she has no mean to prove you wrong. Comp explains why machines will fear you.

> 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,

Unless you disbelieve in the existence of the prime numbers, it is obvious that there are other kind of existence.

then brings in the implausibility of sense and the necessity for a homunculus regress between sensory and (hypothetical) nonsensory phenomena.

Computer science excels in solving the recursive regress. There are many fixed points which solve them.
The universality comes from some closure properties.

> 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.

No, only the universal machine, notably looking in their own head (so to speak). looking outside their head can accelerate or distract that process.

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.'

To you who admit not having studied the machine. But your comparison is nonsensical. No geologist that I know believe that rock can think, except perhaps complex quasi-cristal, in *some* sense.

But the idea that machine can think is defended since the beginning, and is at the least a venerable hypothesis, plausible, even trivial (in the weak comp sense). Then studying computer science provides clues (as I try to explain).

> 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

If there are non-machines that are gods, why would there need to be machines also who are people?

Because the number exists and have complex relations making it so.

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.

No, it is well known mathematical theorems. The logicians study machines and non-machines all the time. Most attributes of machines are themselves non-machines, and some are Löbian entities.

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.

Because you don't study. You are like "I know machines are dumb, so I don't need to listen to them. "
That is a self-enforcing prejudice.

> 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.

No; please read the literature. My position is almost the conventional one by logicians. You can read the book by Judson Webb on the subject, or the books by Torkel Franzen. I sum up all the papers on the Gödel, mind and machine question in my long text "conscience et mécanisme". It is a rich subject. You seem to miss the important point that machine have not just limitation (by Gödel's theorem), but that they know that they have those limitations),. They can prove them about themselves, in the 3p way. And with the Bp & p, sense is transparent and flexible ... from the machine's 1p pov.

> 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.

Sure, but universal machine can be "head". You have nice analogies, but you just use them to beg again the question.

> 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.

We never lose consciousness. Losing consciousness is an illusion that our brain introduces for making us believe that ... we can lose consciousness, and life. But we never do. That might play a role in surviving (on earth) strategies, but with comp, and actually with Descartes, there is the idea that we never lose consciousness, and with training, you can learn to notice this during all nights. First person unconsciousness does not make sense. That simply does not exist. But we can become amnesic, and lose memory, and context. We cannot be unconscious, but we can believe having been unconscious, but that is an artificial, fragile, construct of the mind.

Then, by testing consciousness, we were actually talking about the consciousness of someone else, in the 3p sense of testing, like in physics and science. Or own consciousness cannot be tested by another, as the Löbian machines already know. We can test it ourself, but it is trivially alway positive testing. A dead corpse cannot test and conclude "I am not conscious". Nor can a zombie.



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