On 19 Sep 2014, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2014 5:46 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Consciousness has a state (which we call the
observer moment). If that state differs, then the state of the
supervened must also differ.
Thus consciousness cannot supervene on the UD* as it doesn't change
for a change of state of consciousness.
This seems to me to arise from equivocation about "consciousness".
You are treating it, as I experience it, as a temporal phenomenon -
a succession of thoughts, an inner narrative. That's the
consciousness I'd like to be able to program/engineer/understand.
But Bruno make's consciousness a potentiality of an axiomatic
system, for which he seems almost everything alive as a model (in
the mathematical sense), anything that could instantiate an "if-
then" or a "controlled-controlled-not". And he says that salvia
makes him think consciousness need not be temporal - which might be
like whiskey sometimes makes me think the ground sways. From
Bruno's viewpoint the UD* just IS and Alice's different thoughts as
different times are just computations of those thoughts which are
correlated with computations of those times. That may resolve the
atemporal UD vs the temporal experience, but it still doesn't
explain consciousness. It doesn't explain what computations of
Alice's are constitute her consciousness as opposed to her
subconsciousness or her brain functions or other stuff going on. It
is not an answer to say, well maybe everything in conscious.
When you say "Bruno make's consciousness a potentiality of an
axiomatic system", it would be more correct to say, that I attribute
an actual conscious state, very raw, to the machine having that
universal potentiallity. To attribute consciousness to non universal
object, will not make much sense, as object somehow exists only in the
imaginations of universal machines. That raw basic consciousness is
shared by my and yours laptop, it is the same consciousness, and it
can differentiate maximally on all computational histories.
But that is not an explanation of consciousness, just a consequence of
the mechanist hypothesis, which is used more to formulate the problem
than to answer it, except that comp makes it possible to formulate the
problem in arithmetic, and to use meta-arithmetical theorems to get
some light (the arithmetical points of view/hypostases) on the
picture. Shortly UDA is the problem, AUDA (G, G*, S4Grz, ...) is the
beginning of the solution and its testing, improvement, etc.
I don't thing it makes sense to say that everything is conscious, only
the subject, that is the (universal) machines and the gods.
technically I could explain that there is a notion of sub-
universality, or sub-creativity, and that conciousness starts probably
there, but that would be too much technical. Consciousness starts with
the self-speeding up ability. A sub-universal universal number is a
self-accelerator, and that's how it get more and more independence and
freedom, in principle, and only when asteroids leave them alone (bad
luck), and when they don't destroy themselves (bad faith).
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
