> On 24 Sep 2018, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>> On 23 Sep 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> On 23 Sep 2018, at 08:53, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would say that mechanism explains rather well consciousness, through >>>>>> computer science and the logic of self-reference ((which basically >>>>>> predict consciousness (indubitable, non provable and non definable sort >>>>>> of knowledge), >>>>> >>>>> With that sort of logic >>>> >>>> Only standard classical logic is used in the derivation. + some hypothesis. >>>> >>>>> I can prove that my cat is a dog: >>>>> My cat has four legs and a tail; dogs have four legs and a tail; so my >>>>> cat is a dog. >>>> >>>> That is invalid in all logic. I was not arguing, just remind the work >>>> already done. The proof is longer, OBVIOUSLY. It shows that you have not >>>> read the papers. >>> >>> No, you use exactly this logic all the time. You find some superficial >>> similarity between things and then conclude that they are identical. >> >> Could you be specific? Did you read my papers? > > Quoting from above: "...the logic of self-reference basically predict > consciousness…."
That quote is too short to make sense. I say that in the context of Mechanism. Then in the math part, I have (semi-) exiomatize consciousness as True, unjustifiable, undefinable, immediately knowable, indubitable, and show how the modes of self-reference makes any universal machine verifying the existence of this. > >>> Showing that the logic of self reference has some similarities with >>> consciousness is not sufficient. >> >> Sufficient for what? I think you attribute me things I do not say. > > Sufficient to explain consciousness. I quote what you say… Qouting is not enough. You must study and understand the theory before. If you don’t understand, ask a question. > >> I start from a precise hypothesis, then all what I say is first derive >> informally, and then formally, using rather standard definition. >> >>> You have to show me a logic that has a coherent internal narrative and >>> shows the signs of consciousness that I use to conclude that other people >>> (and cats and dogs) are conscious. >> >> ? >> >> I will only give you a proof that any machine claiming such a proof is >> inconsistent. >> >> I assume mechanism (the invariant of consciousness fr some transformation), >> and derive from that, constructively, the appearances, including the >> physical appearances, so that we can test. > > Proof is a formal concept. Both the notion of informal proof and formal proof are axiomatised in my work. Indeed they correspond to the modes axiomatised by []p & p, and []p. The first one is defined in term of arithmetical relations that the subject concerned cannot formalised (like truth, if you have heard of Tarski theorem). > A proof conveys truth only in so far as the axioms/assumptions that were > assumed at the start are true. Proof in general does not entails truth. That is the whole point of the Löb’s formula. No Löbian thjeorie or machine can prove []p -> p in general, unless and only unless they have proof p. > Your proof assumes arithmetical realism (platonism). Yes, that means it assumes that classical logic can be applied in elementary arithmetic. That is presupposed in *all* papers in the physics literature, and elsewhere. This is just to avoid some form of ultra-finitisme. (I put all the cards on the table). > I do not accept that arithmetical realism is true. Therefore your proof is > irrelevant. > Which arithmetical formula you believe to be neither true, nor false. But since then, my work has been shown valid in hey thing arithmetic. It is just more complex. >> I don’t think you have studied my papers, or my long version. > > If I do not accept the starting point, then studying the long version of your > argument is not going to convince me. Well, if you believe that the body is not Turing emulable, you might tell me what is not Turing emulable, nor FPI-recoverable. This makes QM wrong, and in fact all know physical theory wrong. It makes Drawin theory of evolution wrong. My hypothesis is basically Diderot definition of rationalism. Not invocation of supernatural influence, nor of actual infinities. Oracle (à la Turing) are permitted though. > >> I don’t claim any truth. > > Good. The conclusions of formal proofs are true only in so far as the > premises are true. You can't prove the truth of arithmetical realism. I cannot prove that x + 0 = 0. With mechanism, I have deduced the “theory of everything (that is of quanta and qulaia and their relations). And the theory is any first order definition of a Turing universal system. I illustrate with Q and the SK-combinator. > >> I give a proof, showing that the physical science are reduced to arithmetic, >> once we assume the mechanist thesis in metaphysics, and the proof is >> constructive, so I do provide the theorem prover programs for each modes >> (including the physical) at the propositional level. > > So if we do not assume that mechanism is true then your proofs are valueless. You can say that for all theories. But most people conceive more easily that QM or GR might be false than elementary arithmetic, or the elementary combinator axioms. So I guess you just say that you believe that the brain or the body is not Turing emulable, or, put in another way, that you believe that you consciousness has a supernatural origin. But if this were true, you would have told us since long. Anyway, you cannot use another theory to claim that an argument is not valid. You could demolish group theory by claiming that N, 0, + * is not a group. That is not valid. Also, you talk in term of a theory being true or false, but that is something that we never know, unless again, you told us that a supernatural being has succeeded where science cannot, but again, we cannot invoke a supernatural being to make an argument invalid. My hypothesis are assumed by 99, 9998% of the scientists implicitly or explicitly. I have found only two (series) authors studying alternative theory. Now, many people who tend to assume mechanism assumes also materialism, but this is shown to be logically or epistemologically inconsistent. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
