On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be >>> conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. >>> Even more so if the consciousness is a product of evolution in that world. >>> Evolution cannot produce anything that contradicts the laws of physics. >>> >> >> One way to see that consciousness and physics are not tightly constrained >> is to note that our consciousness seems adapted to living on a flat Earth >> in which Newtonian mechanics prevails. The "laws of physics", as we've >> presently congratulated ourselves on inventing, are so far from intuitive >> that there are endless arguments over how to interpret them. >> > > John Clark misses this by stopping at UDA step 3 (not included), and Bruce > seems to stop at step 4 (not included). >
Which particular 'this' do you have in mind here? The interpretation of the "laws of physics"? > We, the universal machines, are distributed in an infinity of > (arithmetical) computations below our substitution level on which our First > Person experience is undetermined, and the laws to predict the observable > must be given by a statistic on all computations, or it needs to invoke > some metaphysical entity, be it Matter or God, doing a magical (non Turing > emulable nor FPI recoverable) selection. That entails a "many computations" > view of reality, and the quantum logical aspect of Nature is intuitively > explained already. > > Now, why negative amplitude of probability? Not sure I follow. Negative amplitude of probability is found in harmonical functions, is n't it? > This remains counter-intuitive, but is explained by the fact that the > statistic are not on the 3p representational bodies in arithmetic, but on > the 1p views, which necessitate to be defined by machine-self-reference. In > that case, the non intuitive matter features are recovered by the > nonintuitive logic of self-reference and its 1p variants, and indeed, we > get a quantum logic which makes us expect a unique measure. It obeys, up to > now at least, everything needed to have those negative probability > amplitudes, as required. > It is true that we can implement consciousness in a classical machine > (assuming the substitution level enough high) but from its first person > perspective, that machine will still experience the indeterminacy > probabilities on all "classical and non classical" implementations in > arithmetic. > > People are stuck on the brain-mind identity brain link, which is not > available when we assume Mechanism. The first person is always associated > with an infinity of implementations. We have to take into account the 1p/3p > distinction. If a machine discovers that it run in a classical physical > setting, the machine we interrogate will act like she knows that she > belongs to a simulation or that computationalism is false. > > I understand that this is shocking, but normally, in this list, people > should be used to it, because they accept Everett and the "everything" idea > which should help them to be prepared for that admittedly unpleasant > self-differentiation/self-multiplication. That is why I explain mechanism > here, as people know already the work of Everett, and from a physicists > standpoint, Mechanism generalizes its embedding of the subject's body in > subject's matter of the theory, something already begun in arithmetic by > Gödel, Kleene, Post, etc. > Not only that, at first blush it looks as if it reverses entirely the explanatory priority from mechanism-->mind to mind-->mechanism. But perhaps in fact it creates a symmetry between the two modes of explanation. What I mean is that if we were to simply accept mechanism on its own terms, without extrapolating to mind, then we would have an 'explanation' entirely in itself, or rather a machine that proceeds of itself without further need of explanation. For example, if we conceive physics as such a mechanism, the physical machine proceeds from state to state without the need of invoking mind, or for that matter worlds, creatures, biological evolution, or all the other mentalistic paraphernalia. On the other hand, should we be 'minded' to accept mind on its own terms, we are at once at a loss for a mechanism for the phenomena that undoubtedly appear within its observational spectra. As a slogan, we might assert that (from an explanatory perspective) mechanism has no need for a mind, but mind is in dire need of a mechanism. This, if you like, supplies a rationale for why we look for such a mechanism and feel justified in deploying observational self-selection as the filter on the generalised mechanistic base. Having done so, we find ourselves left with the explanatory or implicative symmetry mind<-->mechanism. David > 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 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. > -- 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.
