On 20 Sep 2014, at 02:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/19/2014 9:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
But you've said you don't believe in "observer moments", so I don't
know what "an actual conscious state" can refer to.
Oh, I just mean a raw particular conscious state, like the state of
Alice in the room, or the state of someone in some particular
circonstances. Mathematically this has to be defined in arithmetic,
and some instinctive belief in <>p can work, in a first 3-1p
approximation. (<>p v p) works better in the 1p-1p approximation. It
is an act of faith, where we are not conscious of the 'faith" act, and
quickly based, as we repeat that act every second since birth, perhaps
before.
If it refers to a "universal potentiality" I'd say you're just
muddling words. A potentiality and a actual state are contradictory
things.
No problem. I "really" (currently) tend to think that RA has a raw
(even statical) form of consciousness, close to the consciousness of
all babies, animal and perhaps plants.
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.
All that means is you've completely redefined "conscious" in you own
special language so that it has nothing to do with with direct
experience, or any experience at all.
Not at all. It is a "natural" state of consciousness, but that we are
not aware of, because we focus so much on the everyday content. There
are technic, like stopping thinking, medicating, or with some plants,
to access more easily such state.
You can also conceive it, with enough imagination, by doing thought
experience involving amnesia. Forgetting memories does not diminish
consciousness (sometimes it can even been felt as liberating,
especially when forgetting trauma, or annoying contexts, etc). Then
you might be able to conceive that complete amnesia without change in
the "intensity" of consciousness can make sense.
Yet in other context you insist it is what is directly experience
and it is the only knowledge (as compared to mere belief).
Yes. Indeed, it is what is common in all experiences. It is not empty,
even if we usually rarely focus on that state.
But that is not an explanation of consciousness, just a consequence
of the mechanist hypothesis,
It's a consequence of an unique definition of "consciousness".
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.
When are they conscious?
Consciousness is not located in time and space. Those are part of the
conscious experience. The consciousness of your laptop is not "here
and now" in your sense of "here and now", but in the subject itself
sense.
Is my laptop conscious when it's turned off (it still has the
potential of being turned on)?
You continue to use the machine-mind identity. Consciousness is an
attribute of the abstract or immaterial person, which is distributed
in infinitely many arithmetical relations. The one of RA
differentiates quickly, from the subject views, into any possible
computational histories. Running a program does not create any
consciousness, it helps only to make some person manifestable
relatively to you.
Is it conscious no matter what program it's executing?
Yes.
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.
How can "speeding up" mean anything about an atemporal potentiality?
The "speeding-up" is itself an atemporal property of all universal
(and sub-universal) machines. It means that they have a high
probabilities to find themselves in environment where they can moves
themselves and develop "free-will" or "will".
Bruno
Brent
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 [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/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 [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/d/optout.
--
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/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 [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/d/optout.
