On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 7:27:25 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2015, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/5/2015 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2015, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: > > I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable > effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain > why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. > > > So we all agree on this. > > > ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? > > > I am not sure I understand the question. > > > Strictly speaking there are no third-person observable effects because > there are no third perons observations. > > > Indeed. Physics will be first person plural. > > > > > All observations are first-person. Other people are part of one's model > of reality (unless one is a solipist). So it's nonsense to say we can't > talk about consciousness because it's not third person observable. > > > We can talk on many things that we cannot define, >
Which is why this list needs a fancy artsy-music voice and poster to represent its vanity with appropriate amount of obsession. > like truth, reality, god, consciousness, pain, beauty, etc. > > And then the arithmetical modalities illustrate how we, and the machine, > can indeed talk about what they cannot defined, and find the consequences > of what might be true, but non provable. > > > > > > > Consciousness and the first person effects have observable consequences, > although none can be used as a definite evidences of the presence of > consciousness and/or first person, which can always be imitated for some > finite time. > > As I said, if you can see traces of nuclear technology in some (alien) > civilization, you can be pretty sure that there is some amount of > consciousness there. > > > Why? It certainly shows intelligence=competence. But according to you > that's the complement of consciousness. > > > Competence has just a negative feedback on intelligence, but you need > intelligence (and consciousness) to speed up the learning needed to develop > some competence, especially in the short time apparent in this type of > physical reality. > And I'd venture that the process and negative feedback is difficult to reverse. There should be clinics for those that get too competent ;-) > > In fact it shows that they were enough intelligent to develop the > competence in nuclear physics to build a bomb, and that they are at the > level of dinosaurs in the matter of handling their economic problems by > building them (brute force, lies, terrors, ...). > > > When you reduce temperature to molecular kinetics, temperature does not > disappear. > When you reduce mind to cellular activity, you do eliminate the rôle of > mind, if only because it is the mind which select the "material realities". > > You can eliminate the mind, and even God, from the ontology, but with > computationalism, you need to eliminate matter in the same way. > Are you saying that basic truth, or the bet on some form/attribute of reality like ~[]p, is not necessary in some ontology, and if so which? > > That's the case with classical comp: only 0, 1, 2, 3, exists. The rest are > relative dreams emerging from infinities of true relations among numbers, > and physics is the study of a particular invariant aspect of consciousness. > The reason I have no problem with this, is that from a guitarist's point of view, all compositions are plausibly relative dreams emerging from number relations. > Both the mind and the matter are different phenomenological aspect which > emerges from the fact that arithmetic reflects its theories and machines > infinitely. > We have levels of such relations with platonic guitars, the best sort of guitar (as physical guitars always require killing some kind tree, maintenance etc.), as well as a bunch of first person explanations of why this rhythm number or that harmony number, "do what they do", but we don't have any idea, even if we win awards. That's just lucky fishing, that we showed up for work one day, some musical mermaid whispered something into our ears (you know, like the one that will never leave you alone, when you have that song you can't get out of your head? She will tend to retreat if you pressure, prove, or want to test her?) and surprise, this time a lot of 1st persons agree that it was good music. This doesn't make Mozart, Bach etc. any less cool though, as good fishermen are still hard to find, even if they cannot be this Hollywood style creator god, that can produce infinite amounts of musical/beauty relations any second at will. When we look exclusively at numeric level, I am just as amazed as I was as a kid, of the numbers and stuff that emerges from their relation and can understand too well almost, that many see no connection between the two levels at all. PGC -- 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.
