On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:54:12 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > wrote: > > No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. "everything >>> physical and theological" appears through its intensional activity. >>> >> >> >> "Appears" = output. >> > > I think I see the confusion here. Remember that in comp, as in any TOE, we > begin by hypothesising an ontological base for a universe (or multiverse) > from which we will attempt to derive all-else-that-exists (heaven help > us!). >
That can help explain why it is hard for others to understand my approach. I begin from the reductio ad absurdum of Cartesian doubt. I make no hypothesis and then see what must be unavoidably conceived. Ironically, it is from early experiences with programming games that it was impressed on me that the sense of things cannot be taken for granted. If you want graphics to bounce off of each other when they are moving, you have to define that collision detection and the behavior that follows. The problem with comp is that is does not see that computation itself also runs on a lower level language which (and here is where I start my hypothesis) is neither an immutable given nor is it an accumulation of accidents, but is the fundamental capacity for presence, participation, and the aesthetic enrichment of that presence through participation. Computation is, at best, a thin silhouette of sense, which does not participate and has no presence, but rather is the shared abstractions drawn from the same. Computation does not enrich itself qualitatively, nor does it have any plausible motive to pursue or avoid aesthetic discernments. > Hence ex hypothesi, there can be nothing "outside" that universe and > therefore no "input" or "output" in that sense. > Right. That's why Comp is a hypothesis about a mathematical toy model of some of the effects we associate with consciousness, not about consciousness itself. > Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or > output extrinsic to itself, > Unless, like mine, your TOE makes I/O (unified as a sensory-motive dipole 'sense') the foundation of Everything. > because that would simply be a contradiction in terms. Hence "appearance" > here can only refer to interactions or relationships between subsystems of > the universe entailed by the TOE and that must be true of any TOE > whatsoever. > Not if the TOE is sense-primitive. Since the whole idea of input and output stems from the aesthetic qualities of inside and outside, those terms, as well as all possible sensible terms, have in common the continuity of sense. > A fortiori, since comp *assumes* the presence of the UD and its trace in > arithmetic (in the same sense that any TOE starts by assuming some > ontological base), it cannot make any further sense to ask who or what > "input" the program. OK? > I agree that is how it must appear to any non-sense based TOE. Only sense can allow theory to go beyond itself...in theory. Craig > > David > > -- 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.
