Hi Telmo!
On 25 Feb 2017, at 16:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno!
Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We
know
nothing about consciousness.
Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? That is:
consciousness requires some knowledge, and (genuine) knowledge
requires some
conscious person)?
I agree, but I feel it begs the question: knowledge is an awareness of
something, it implies consciousness by definition.
it does not beg the question no more than the first order definition
of the natural numbers beg the question, in the sense that you agree
(or not) with the modal axioms for knowledgeable:
[]p -> p
[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
adding
[]p -> [][]p (for those having rich introspective knowledge)
Then, we can ask ourself what, in machine terms, or in machine+reality
terms, would obey that theory. In this case, as you know, the
Theaetetus idea works on Gödel's beweisbar predicate: the true
opinion, or beweisbar and true [1]p = []p & p (makes [1] obeying the
S4 logic above).
By Tarski, we cannot define "true" in the language of the machine, but
we can model the knowledge by defining it on each (sigma_1
arithmetical) p by beweisbar('p') & p. That provides a different
logic, thanks to incompleteness, and indeed the arithmetically
complete one (à-la Solovay) is axiomatized by an extension of S4: S4+
Grz (the formula []([](p->[]p) -> p) -> p from Grzegorczyk, a polish
logician). (+ p -> []p to model the sigma_1 leaves of the universal
dovetailer).
What is really nice here, is that the machine cannot name its first
person self, and its metalogic reminds both Brouwer creative subject,
but also the "inner god" of many eastern and western mystics. The soul
of a machine is NOT a machine, nor anything third person describable,
and It knows it.
Now, I could argue that consciousness per se is better modeled by
[1]<1>p, but that is for the details (after all we do have distinct
word for consciousness and knowledge, and a priori, consciousness
might be delusional, where apparently, with the Theaetetic definition,
it cannot be).
What is the situation with an artificial neural network?
Well, it will be harder for us to see its coded self, but it is Turing
universal, and so can have one built by nature emulating Kleene's
second recursion theorem through the neural net. The DNA strands did
something like this already before (arguably).
Does it know
something, or is it akin to a stone being kicked down a hill?
The neural net knows nothing, but if the neural net embodies the right
"codes" it might support a inner soul ([]p & p), like apparently our
brains (which supports many souls which integrated well into the 1-I
(hopefully, when sober).
I think that the left brain might be specialized in the 3p
"analytical" believer []p (& <>t), and the right brain might be
specialize with the intuitive, non definable "[]p & p (& <>t)".
Or is
the stone being kicked down a hill akin to our brains and requiring
consciousness already?
All relatively instanciated consciousness requires the universal
consciousness of the non Löbian machine, I think, and get reflexive
when Löbian, and inherit the Löbian theology, including its physics,
making it testable (and its quantum logic seems to fit until now).
Then do you agree with the S4 theory of rational knowledge, which
is that
(knowable x) implies x
(knowable (x implies y)) implies ((knowable x) implies (knowable y))
(knowable x) implies (knowable (knowable x))
With the inference rules:
If I prove x I can deduce (knowable x)
+ modus ponens
I'm ok with this.
OK.
If you are OK with this, it is not difficult to explain why
evolution, or
anything actually, cannot NOT bring consciousness, and a first person
knower, in the picture.
Here I don't follow. Aren't you making the hidden assumption:
(knowable x) => (known x) ?
Only (knowable x) => (know x) on some leaves of the universal
dovetailer.
Keep in mind that I live and work in Plato heaven, or Cantor paradise.
I don't mind to wait any finite number of seconds. And the gal here is
to figure out what is real, and what is "persistent illusion(s)", like
Einstein qualified time.
Notice that I do tend to think what you say, that "anything actually,
cannot NOT bring consciousness" -- but I see this as part of my
"personal religion". I'm just not convinced that the above proves it.
It does not prove it, but follows from the mechanist assumption. Of
course the theology of the (Löbian) machine does not need the
mechanist assumption, except when we do the sigma_1 restriction, and
get G1 and G1* and its intensional variants.
That is a consequence of incompleteness which make the machine
aware of the
difference between []p and []p & p. The machine can know that []p
obeys to
the modal logic G and that ([]p & p), the definition of "knowable" by
Theaetetus, obeys to the modal logic S4 + Grz (with Grz the
Gregorczyk
formula).
Now, consciousness is not exactly knowledge, but a knowledge of some
"reality".
But "who" knows? Again, isn't this begging the question?
I would say that it is the (relative) universal number which knows.
The universal person canonically attached to all universal numbers
believing in some induction axioms, like PA, ZF, many toposes, etc.
It is based on an implicit automated belief in our consistency
(which is equivalent with the existence of a "model" in the
logician sense,
which means some "reality" satisfying our belief. This makes
consciousness
close to inconsistency.
Interesting idea.
It is the belief in a reality which satisfy our beliefs, but that, by
Gödel's completeness theorem, is akin to the belief in one own
consistency, and this, if true, makes us inconsistent if we add it as
axiom, or claim to be able to prove it.
Raw consciousness is a knowledge ([]p & p) of some reality, and
civilization might occur when we grasp the difference between []p & p
and []p, somehow. It is when we stop invoking "God", or any "reality"
when arguing and even acting.
Then it can be shown that consciousness, which is unavoidable, has
still
some important role in evolution, as it makes the machine self-
speed-up-able
and more and more autonomous relatively to the probable universal
machine/number which supports them.
For me evolution has a very fractal-like quality to it, in the sense
that it generates machines that become very similar to the machine
where they come from. I am still not convinced that consciousness is
necessary to explain biological complexification. Can you expand?
Take the theory T which is "PA + T is consistent". We can built that
self-referential theory/machine using Kleene's theorem. Obviously, by
the second theorem of incompleteness that theory is inconsistent, as
it can prove its own consistency.
Take the theory T which is now "PA + PA is consistent". That theory
can be shown to shorten the proofs of infinitely many statements, and
also to make decidable an infinity of previously undecidable
statement. You can iterate this self-consistency addition in the
transfinite, and reflexive machine has do to so, again, to shorten the
proofs, and speed themselves up relatively to the environment.
I think enough of associated-consciousness was needed for the self-
moving attribute of the soul (Xenocrates) through the relative bodies.
You can move more quickly if you anticipated the reality arond you,
but then you need some amount of betting on it, and consciousness is
that "unconscious" instinctive bet in a reality, and some procedure
for making it looking consistent enough (which we can see as rather
hazardous when contemplating our dreams).
Similarly, we get the feeling and the qualia with the logic of []p
a p, and
[]p & <>t & p, with p sigma_1. This add the symmetrical (p implies
[]p) in
the picture, and leads to quantum sort of logics.
Here I don't follow. You alluded to this quantum-like logic a few
times but you never expanded (I think). I would be interested in a
more detailed explanation.
Because it is technical, and the details are in my publications.
Here I explain more:
Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
It is not so much a question to follow, but to do the math.
Unless you are asking a motivation for using []p & <>p to get a
probability, but this is what I explain with the cup of coffee offered
in both W and M. Of course, things are harder to see in the
arithmetical context, but then we have the Gödel-Löb-Solovay modal
tools, offered gratuitously by the arithmetical reality!
To expand more, we need to solve open mathematical problems which I
list there.
It makes also consciousness into a bridge between the 3p arithmetical
picture and the (many) 1p internal views, including the first
person plural
physics, making this theory testable (and confirmed up to now, both
introspectively and quantitatively). cf NUMBER ==> CONSCIOUSNESS/
DREAM ==>
PHYSICAL-REALITY.
Do you believe you can make a prediction that could be experimentally
tested, ideally something that has not been observed yet?
We can test all quantum arithmetical tautologies, and compare it with
the quantum logics suggested by observations (physicists disagree on
which, and here self-reference propose one very precise).
But this requires hard work, it is good project for many PhD theses.
This explains notably why consciousness is what we know the best
from the 1p
view, and yet is completely NOT definable in any 3p sense (like the
notion
of Arithmetical Truth).
You mean because it does not exist in 3p?
Machine's cannot associate their own knowledge, and consciousness, to
anything 3p, but its own "guardian angel", G* can.
Intutively: consciousness brings the semantics, or the meaning of our
beliefs, and that speed-up the possible actions of the machine,
making the
development of consciousness an advantage in the evolution, even if
it
brings some amount of self-delusion, like the many confusion
between the
reality that we infer with a reification of the reality that we
observe ...
until Pythagoras and Plato get back to the scientific doubt and
skepticism.
I always have a hard time seeing consciousness as causal. What about
does experiments with MRI that show decision being made before the
person in aware of deciding?
The genuine decision involves the universal person in Platonia, and is
out of time and space.
The fact that the neurons have a lot of work to implement that
decision in time explains why it looks like it was determined before
the awareness associated to it, but that would annoy only those who
believes free-will requires some indeterminacy, which is absurd. On
the contrary, free-will requires *enough* (self) determinacy only.
Bruno
T.
I don't quite understand why an omnipotent being
would "want" anything, He should already have it. Nevertheless
the
religious say God does want certain things and they know exactly
precisely
what they are and they insist on telling us about it; and they
also
insist
God can't get what He wants on His own, we have to help the poor
fellow
achieve His aims.
You are describing Abrahamic religions. I don't believe in them
either.
I don't think the
Hindu religion
is significantly less stupid. There are some forms of Buddhism
and Taoism
that aren't stupid but they aren't religions, they don't say
anything
about
God, don't say faith is a virtue, and don't even claim they are
revealing
something new about the world, instead they are doing something
much more
modest, they are giving personal advice; they are saying this is
a way to
be
happy. Not the only way, maybe not the best way, just a way.
Ok, so you only recognise something as a religion if you think it's
stupid. Not hard to win an argument with that move...
I think you are not interested in what Bruno has to say. There's
nothing wrong with that, but it's just a personal preference of
yours.
Well yes, but how could not being interested in something not be a
personal
preference.
It could not be "just a personal preference", which is what I wrote.
Indeed, all what I say is deducible from the computationalist
assumption,
intuitively and formally. The only way a God, or a Matter, can
change the
consequences is by attaching consciousness to something which is
not Turing
emulable nor recoverable from the First Person Indeterminacy in the
set of
all (relative) computational consistent continuations, with or
without
oracle. This makes the physical reality stable for some Random
Oracle, as
the observation confirmed with the quantum indeterminacy. It leads
also to
apparent non-locality.
Bruno
Telmo.
John K Clark
--
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
