On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical thinking (in the frame of Digital
Mechanism). You should explain what an external world is, and how
it select the "real" computations. Are you sure we don't need
blessed water?
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for an argument......
Apology if it looked like sarcasme, but it is was intent to illustrate
the vacuity of explaining something by introducing a miracle, or any
ontological commitment to block a reasoning which does not do it.
If you do metaphysics or theology seriously, you should not talk like
if you knew the answer.
The external world is that which you are conscious of.
OK, but by the (antique) dream argument, or by the virtual multi-user
game, you can't distinguish "conscious of a relative universal number"
with "conscious of the bottom physical reality".
But then my whole point is that we can test for the bottom (and thank
to QM it fits, both intuitively (many "worlds") and formally (quantum
logics)).
And it does not have to select the "real" computations, they select
themselves: the "real" computations are the ones that are conscious.
In some case. But you are right at the meta-level, and that is why we
get a first person knower when we attach the belief with the truth, by
definition, like you do here. It is an excellent intuition, but with
(classical, indexical) mechanism this gives the nuances p, Bp & p, and
Bp & Dt & p.
The nuance came from the machine inability to prove the existence of
an "external world", and the fact she "experience" an external world
(which is another universal machines, and sometimes collection of
universal machine/number share deep histories making them relatively
rare with respect to a random oracle.
Just as the relevent bitstrings in the plenum are the ones that are
conscious -- no one has to search through the pile to find them.
?
To drive a bike, you don't need to study the gyroscope mechanics. To
understand the bike, you need it.
It is the same with consciousness. You said many right things, and the
points is that you can make them precise, in the theory of mind of the
(universal Turing) machine(. With mechanism, below your substitution
level infinitely many UM compete. Above your substitution level a
finite number of universal machines "competes", from bacteria to your
family, friends and colleagues, and much more.
Ontological dualism does not work. Monism asks to either reduce the
mind to the body, or the body to the mind, or the mind-body illusion/
experience to something else.
With mechanism, you have to assume a universal machinery. It happens
that very elementary arithmetic is Turing complete. Any universal
number can be used to defined all the other, but it is angle with
already they own particularity, yet the core theology and the core
physics are the same "in the first person limit in arithmetic" for all
universal numbers.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
