Comp works whether you are conscious or unconscious, if it works at all.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > > > 2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > >> >> You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of that >> kind from computationalism. >> >> Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most common >> one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the field, but this >> has nothing to do with comp. >> >> Then I allude sometimes about salvia divinorum, for which your remark >> makes much more sense (but still not as a consequence of comp). It is >> normal that altering consciousness products or methods can provide >> information on consciousness. >> >> > So inplicitly you are agreeing with what I told. You would never accept > it however. > > > Accept what? > > > > But don´t worry. That is not bad. It is simply human. To use the desired > conclussion > > > Which desired conclusion. You talk like if I was doing philosophy. > > > > > as an starting axiom is natural. > > > Well, I desire that 1+1 = 2. You might say that. But I have no desire that > comp is true. Nor that it is false. I don't really care. In both case we > face something extra-ordinary. > > > > > I do not talk about your professional work or your conscious thinking, in > which you are correct, but about the influence of you hipothesis in the > spontaneous thinking about what is true in apparently unrelated questions > where the conscious does not fire the "caution, it is only an hipothesis!" > warning. > > > You lost me. Not sure what you are saying. I don't use comp to justify the > use of coffee or tea in the morning. same with any other psychotropic > products. > > > > Most of the thinking is unconscious. That´s why we wake-up with a solution > for a problem after sleeping. That is an example of how the individual > good (desired outcomes at least) establish what is true. > > > Which good, which truth? > > As a scientist, I never invoke truth, except of course when I use the > concept of truth in the subject matter, which is the bread of the > logicians' work. But we will never pretend that this or that statement is > true. > > I intuit some misunderstanding, but you are not enough clear so that I can > point of which precisely. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> >> >>> (It is not a rethorical question. it is not an "accusation". I just ask) >>> >> >> Marijuana makes things cool and a bit psychedelic. >> To dissociate completely and "visit other realities" Salvia is more >> efficacious. Also the experience last between 4 and 8 minutes, when >> cannabis or wine inebriate you for about two to four hours. >> >> But the results are more easily sharable when doing math and logic. >> >> Normally. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> 2014/1/24, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> >>>> On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >>>> >>>> 2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Alberto, >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or >>>>>>> something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital >>>>>>> computer. >>>>>>> So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition. >>>>>>> because >>>>>>> it embrace everything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations, >>>>>> simulations, >>>>>> representations and all other information related aspects of the >>>>>> universe. >>>>>> It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the >>>>>> physical >>>>>> world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation >>>>>> can be a >>>>>> morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces, >>>>>> thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate >>>>>> yet >>>>>> related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members >>>>>> of the >>>>>> Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then, are >>>>>> Identical. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using lego >>>>>>> pieces? No, my dear legologist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces >>>>>>> entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation is >>>>>>> whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and >>>>>>> thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to >>>>>>> increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to >>>>>> their >>>>>> input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of >>>>>> transformation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that >>>>> produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A cruise missile is not a computation. >>>> Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation, >>>> nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on all >>>> computations). >>>> >>>> I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no >>>> controversial notions. the notion of computation is based on the >>>> mathematical discovery of the universal systems, languages and >>>> (mathematical and digital) machines. Computation theory and >>>> computability theory are standard branches of computer science. >>>> >>>> Well, to be sure, the notion of computation is more complex than the >>>> notion of computability, but it is easy to get in all case precise >>>> definitions which are coherent with what we know about universal >>>> systems. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>>> But... as long as the are though or they are build or they are used, >>>>> the goal is to create some kind of order by the mind that defines, >>>>> uses or build it. >>>>> >>>>> These computations at last produce certain desired order. Either are >>>>> made for you to convince me about how meaningles is my definition or >>>>> to kill terrorists in an enemy country etc. Ultimately the desired >>>>> outcome is reduction of uncertainty and entropy around the designer. >>>>> >>>>> . It is a metaphisical position if you like. If you like, I can call >>>>> "essence of computation" instead of "computation" as such. or >>>>> alternatively "the self sustained process for which the computation is >>>>> _ever_ made for" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> of information, including transformations that are automorphisms. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> A simulation is an special case of the latter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So there are things that are computations: what the living beings do >>>>>>> at the chemical, physiological or nervous levels (and rational, >>>>>>> social >>>>>>> and technological level in case of humans) . But there are things >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> are not computations: almost everything else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> We are using a very narrow definition of computations and thus miss >>>>>> the >>>>>> computations that physical processes outside of our CPUs and GPUs are >>>>>> performing. If the functions of an Isolated physical system are >>>>>> such that >>>>>> the transformations they induce in/on their cover space (?) of >>>>>> representations are a simulation of the physical system, what >>>>>> obtains? A >>>>>> one to one map of the system that co-evolves with it. When we >>>>>> consider >>>>>> physical systems interacting with each other, could they >>>>>> additionally have >>>>>> partial emulations of each other within their "self-simulations"? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Alberto. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything- >>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alberto. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alberto. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
