On 20 Jul 2014, at 05:26, Kim Jones wrote:

A good thinking habit to cultivate is simplicity. Try and make it as simple as you can.

Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of):

1. I know

2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.)

I agree that you are very close. But this is not without difficulty. In comp, if you use I know, it automatically means "I believe". The 1p has really no name, and can't even say "I know", and that is part of the non assertability of consciousness.

Slightly more correct, but still misleading, would be

1. I believe

2. I know that I believe.

The second "I know" is still not valid, but the machine has more abilities to point on it.

You could have said, for correct machine:

1. She knows
2. She knows that she knows.

Then that can be made correct, assuming a machine more simple than you. But it is no more clearly addressing consciousness. Normal, as we can't do that, if we are correct machine. To name consciousness is almost as much a blaspheme than naming God, in comp.






Are there any others?

Am I correct in assuming the comp substitution level is where consciousness reaches 2?

I would say yes, and is coherent with the fact that you need to bet on the substitution level, you can believe in it, and thus know it in the Theaetus' weak sense, but you can't know it in the sense of being sure of it (even in the case you already survived, in which case you can feel to be sure, but can still doubt intellectually).



In fact you have to be at 2 to even be able to say you are at 1.

Yes. It is the main difference between RA and PA. RA satisfies 1. But not 2. PA satisfies both 1 and 2. It is the difference between being just universal, and being universal and knowing it (Löbian).



This second level of experience appears to be what defines self- aware consciousness. It is the 'I' who knows, (supposedly) consistently the same as the 'I' that "I" know and vice versa.

Consciousness is therefore more than the contents of consciousness. Where does this magical ability of matter to organise its own self- organising information system come from? How does the machine construct its own operating system?

All the self-organization occurs by the richness of the laws of addition and multiplication in the number realm. brains and other molecular societies are only lawful stable appearances. Keep in mind that numbers and machines excel in self-reference, both the 3p and 1p one, and so all that occurs in UD* or in simple arithmetic.

Bruno






Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
             kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web:     http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain



--
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/d/optout.

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/d/optout.

Reply via email to