Hi Bruno, Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting.
> Ah! Let me try to answer.Keep in mind that I assume elementary arithmetic and > thus computations, etc. > (I am not sure I need YD here, but it can help). > > >> >> - Why does consciousness even exist? > > Consciousness is somehow the doubt between consistency and truth (<>p v p). > > All universal number self introspecting meet this, and it is felt as > immediately obvious, and thus true, and undoubtable, yet non rationally > justifiable, and even non definable. I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point. > It goes from the rough dissociated universal consciousness of Q to the > elaborate self-consciousness of PA or ZF, or us. > > > > > >> Darwinism does not seem to require it. > > It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it > let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more > efficacious machine, with respect to its most probable history. > So, consciousness brings a self-speedable ability, which is quite handy for > self-moving being living in between a prey and a predator. I'm not convinced. Consider a simple computer simulation where agents are controlled by evolving rules. Agents can eat blue or red pills. 90% of the time blue pills give them energy and red pills cause damage. 10% of the time the opposite happens. It is not possible to know before eating a pill. Let's say the rule system evolves to make the agents always eat blue pills and never red pills. Most of the time this helps the agents, precisely because it assumes the most probable histories. This is a simplified version of the sort of "decisions" that evolution makes, and I would say that it is reasonable to assume that our own evolutionary story consists of the accumulation of a great number of such decisions. I still don't see how consciousness makes a difference in such a mechanism. >> - What is the relationship between consciousness and matter? > > The first is true, the second is consistent. Ok. It's hard to disagree. > (And I hope that the first is first person and the second is first person > plural, but that is exactly what Everett or QM confirms, but is still unclear > in arithmetic. > > > > >> - Is there a reality that is external to conscious perception? > > > The arithmetical reality, from which conscious perception build up the > histories. Some having long and deep reason above the substitution level, as, > by the delay invariance in the first person perspective, below our > substitution level, we have only a statistics on many histories, obeying some > quantum (like) logic. The apparent primary physical reality is really a sum > on all “fictions”. > > As long as nature continue to verify this, I think that explain a lot. Note > that the soul ([]p & p) is not a machine, in its own perspective. Only in God > eyes, but even that is an open question for the completed quantified theory > of the soul, where evidences exist that even God is limited to that respect, > which might explain why even God cannot predict to you, where you will feel > after a duplication. My intuitive understanding of FPI is that both branches occur, they are both equally real and both are experienced in the first person, but from within one branch one cannot perceive the other, so the indeterminacy is, in a sense, an illusion created by the limitations of our own awareness -- the same limitations, of course, that make the human experience possible. Cheers, Telmo. > Please, demolish me now. What do I miss? (Of course, I will be unable to > explain where the numbers comes from, but this, up to recursive equivalence, > the universal machine (Löbian like PA) can already explain to be not > explainable). > > Bruno > > > > > >> >>> My view is scientifically speaking we never know anything "fundamental" and >>> the search for it is like the hunting of the snark. We seek theories with >>> more scope and more accuracy, but being "more fundamental" doesn't entail >>> that something is most fundamental. Mystics like Bruno postulate something >>> and then build structures on it which, by some (often small) agreement with >>> experience, PROVE their postulates. But as Feynman used to point out, this >>> is Greek mathematics. Science is like Persian mathematics in which the >>> mathematician seeks to identify all the possible axiom sets that entail the >>> observations. >> >> I tend to agree that scientifically we never know anything >> fundamental. I do believe that it is possible to use reason to acquire >> knowledge by means that are not the scientific method. I am certain >> that I possess knowledge that was not acquired by scientific means, >> for example I know how it feels to be me. Even if my metaphysical >> obsessions are a fool's errand, I do think it is valuable to know >> where the boundaries of scientific knowledge are, and be humble enough >> to recognize them. >> >> I feel that a lot of resistance to this stuff comes from a fear that >> one is trying to slide religion or the supernatural through the back >> door, so to speak. I trust that you believe that I am not trying to >> sell anything like that. I only proclaim my ignorance, and the >> ignorance of everyone else. >> >> Telmo. >> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Telmo. >>>> >>>>> We >>>>> work with reasonable hypothesis that are not contradicted by the evidence >>>>> and have predictive power. So the anesthesiologist will be able to >>>>> predict >>>>> that you will be inert and unresponsive during the operation and you will >>>>> not remember any of it and will not even feel that time has passed. He >>>>> will >>>>> also be able to predict that this can also be achieved by a strong blow >>>>> to >>>>> the head... but not to the foot. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
