On 09 Dec 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:

## Advertising

On 12/9/2013 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 09 Dec 2013, at 01:33, LizR wrote:On 9 December 2013 05:52, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousnessConsciousness is the feeling information has when it is beingprocessed; if conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes atthe end of a long line of "what is that?" questions, then aftersaying that there is just nothing more that can be said about it.And hey, it's just as good as a billion other consciousnesstheories.Ah yes, Max Tegmark's "theory".These aren't theories, is theproblem. One needs a rigorous definition of what consciousness is,to start with, and then a theory that explains all its observedfeatures, and makes testable predictions. Otherwise all one has isa jumble of words.To be precise, we don't need a definition of what consciousness is.WE need only to agree on some assertion on consciousness. It is thesame with line and points. The same with natural numbers. We don'tneed to define them (in fact we can't). We need only to agree onaxioms about them, and methods or rules of logical inference/deduction.And we learn what are natural numbers in the same way, ostensivelyby one's mother holding up fingers and saying "one", "two",... Andso we generalize and make a theory about fingers and other countablethings. And we know that in all cases we run into we can add onemore and so we casually assume an axiom of infinity because it isconvenient and seems to cause no problems. But if it leads toparadoxes and absurdities...

`All this does not define the natural numbers in the sense of a logical`

`categorical definition. Why we understand them is a mystery, but we`

`can meta-explained why that mystery is unsolvable. We don't need an`

`infinity axiom in the ontology (indeed the axioms of the TOE is RA: no`

`infinity axioms, not even induction axioms). But with comp at the meta-`

`level, we do use infinity axioms at the epistemological level---or at`

`least the creature generated by RA do that, and we interview them to`

`retrieve the physical laws.`

This is a point where I might be quick sometimes/

`UDA start from comp, and at step 8, we should understand that the TOE`

`is RA (or equivalent), and comp is replaced by the restriction to the`

`sigma_1 sentences for the epistemology.`

`So going from UDA to AUDA, comp passes from the base level to the`

`metalevel. In AUDA we assume RA, and interview richer believer (like`

`PA) as generated by RA (or equivalently the universal dovetailer).`

`After UDA, we know that we dont need and cannot need anything more than`

0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

`The comp philosophy is then translated entirely in term of`

`definitions, and theorems in that theory.`

Bruno

Brent --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.