On 07 Feb 2015, at 00:36, PGC wrote:
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.
Absolutely :)
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.
I am not sure. It depends. Sometimes surviving an accident or a shock
can resume intelligence, which is really, unlike competence (which
asks for works and gifts) a state of mind. It is the natural state of
mind of the innocent beginners, which normally is not afraid of asking
question.
There should be clinics for those that get too competent ;-)
Well ... Let us not exaggerate. As long as they don't steal my money
and does not destroy the planet, competence should be legal :)
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?
Yes. [] ~[]p is always wrong, there is no []<># in G* at all.
No worry. <>t, that is ~[]f, is still necessary, in your dreams
(which *are* the important things).
Computationalism makes it possible to see the meta-theology, but we
cannot apply it to us in any normative or "necessary" ways, if only
because we cannot define our own arithmetical correctness.
In a sense that is why we need to bet, the bet is necessary because
the thing we bet on might be contingent.
It is subtler with the material hypostases, with p sigma, and the new
box defined in G by []p & p, or []p & <>p (& p),
We do get []<>A which are true, and indeed the p sigma_1 true entails
the truth of []<>A, making the neighborhood symmetrical in some weak
sense.
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.
Numbers and music have a long tradition of good 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.
The whole mystery is there, in more complex, because beauty is
plausibly even less definable than truth.
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.
Music, especially digital, can reproduce quickly, be copied,
transformed, etc.
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
There are many relations. I am amazed of musinum, which is a very
simple algorithm based on numbers(*) which produce harmonic melody,
without obvious link to Pythagorean harmonic, at least for me. That
program remains a bit mysterious to me, like the Mandelbrot type of
beauty. (They both are fractals).
I suspect the Universal Machine to bring the dissonance and the
thriller tones in the Pythagorean Heaven.
There are shortcuts between numbers and musics, analysis, physics, but
theologians needs to make the self-referential detour to get the non
communicable parts like the qualia, and the relation with the
transcendental truth we bet on.
Bruno
(*) http://reglos.de/musinum/
--
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.
