On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2018, at 21:20, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 12:01:22 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Sep 2018, at 15:35, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2018, at 07:28, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 10:55:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23 Sep 2018, at 13:37, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 4:41:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Sep 2018, at 09:00, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 1:28:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Sep 2018, at 11:40, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 22, 2018 at 2:48:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:55, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:20 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Mind is what a brain does
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >*And walking and running is what the legs do. *
>>>>>>>> *There is no "walking" like some Platonic immaterial universal
>>>>>>>> except for some pair of legs to be doing it.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, there is no thinking without a brain (biological or
>>>>>>> electronic) to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming your ontological commitment, but that is pseudo-religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or equivalently: you confuse matter and primitive matter. Nobody
>>>>>>> doubt that to have human or biological consciousness, we need a human
>>>>>>> brain
>>>>>>> or some electronic device, but that is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What has been proved, (see Kleene’s 1952 book) is that the
>>>>>>> arithmetical reality emulates all computations. No need of any more
>>>>>>> assumption than Church thesis and the very elementary arithmetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But an ontological physical reality is only metaphysical speculation
>>>>>>> or hypothesis, and in our setting it is invalid to use it as a
>>>>>>> counter-argument. The most you can do, if you really want to take your
>>>>>>> ontology for granted, is to reject Digital Mechanism or to find a
>>>>>>> mistake
>>>>>>> in my argument, without using your ontological commitment (which would
>>>>>>> beg
>>>>>>> the question).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Up to now, you have failed to that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It still seems to me that consciousness itself could be an argument
>>>>>> against a purely information-based ontology. ("Information" meaning
>>>>>> based
>>>>>> purely on numbers, combinators, etc.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philip Goff and Michael Shermer discussed basically this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/solving-the-mysteries-of-consciousness-free-will-and-god-with-michael-shermer-and-philip-goff/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> via https://twitter.com/Philip_Goff/status/1043053992916467714
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (In there there is an about 1 hour podcast.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My summary (fits in a tweet) of Goff:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Physicalism, based on pure informationality (quantitative states and
>>>>>> language} is not sufficient to explain consciousness, but a materialism
>>>>>> (one greater than physicalism) that is based on experientiality
>>>>>> (qualitative states and language) in addition to informationality, may
>>>>>> be.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is short. You might elaborate. I can refer you to my papers
>>>>>> which shows that you cannot have both materialism/physicalism and
>>>>>> Mechanism. Many believe that materialism and mechanism go well together,
>>>>>> but they are logically incompatible. With mechanism, physics is reduced
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> arithmetic “seen from inside”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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), but with the price of forcing to drive the physical
>>>>>> appearance
>>>>>> from that theory of consciousness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That was my reply in a tweet to Goff's [
>>>>> https://twitter.com/Philip_Goff/status/1043053992916467714 ] to
>>>>> summarize in my own words the Goff view.
>>>>>
>>>>> I elaborate further in my previous post here on *Realistic
>>>>> Computationalism*:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/ZDKbxJuQYt4/Z7C1ePCzAwAJ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By Pure Computationalism [
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems ] I
>>>>> mean that everything
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which everything? What are your basic metaphysical assumption?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> can be seen as computation with quantitative information (numbers,
>>>>> basically) alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given Goff's definition of physicalism, physicalism is consistent with
>>>>> (pure) computationalism. But it's not sufficient for consciousness (Goff,
>>>>> Strawson) , even if computation is extended to hypercomputation.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then materialism > physicalism (i-states + e-states > i-states).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At this stage materialism and physicalism can be identified, and we
>>>>> can add nuances later.
>>>>>
>>>>> But with computationalism, neither materialism (even weak, the belief
>>>>> in some matter not reducible to something else) nor physicalism are
>>>>> consistent with Mechanism. A short argument can be find here:
>>>>>
>>>>> B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
>>>>> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference,
>>>>> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>>>>>
>>>>> (sane04)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More details are given here:
>>>>>
>>>>> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body
>>>>> problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
>>>>>
>>>>> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in
>>>>> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell from the summaries:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007961071300028X
>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000887
>>>>
>>>> Realistic Computationalism (*RealComp*) is still greater than Pure
>>>> Computationalism (PureComp, or just Comp, which includes all in the above
>>>> two references)
>>>>
>>>> and it is basically Philip Goff's view:
>>>>
>>>> PureComp emulates how things behave, but not how they are in themselves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good. In arithmetic computable entails arithmetic, but most attribute
>>>> of the computable thing are not computable, that is why the machine will
>>>> be
>>>> identify with her beliefs, and this makes each machine very different,
>>>> that
>>>> is how consciousness differentiate in arithmetic to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In your *Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology* papers (which I'd
>>> like to see),
>>>
>>>
>>> Just ask. I will send you some papers I have published there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> it would be interesting to see how this relates to *reflection* (the
>>> subject beginning with Brian Cantwell Smith's fundamental thesis) in
>>> programming language theory. (This is the study of code that is
>>> "self-aware", can reason about and modify itself, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you talking about FOL and its lisp-like tower?. That is an
>>> interesting (albeit a bit naive metaphysically) approach. If you like
>>> Smith, you should like the general (and much older) theory, which is
>>> actually the theory of any universal machine when studying itself. But
>>> Smith belongs to the mechanist family, no doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the case of consciousness, if it is something beyond pure
>>> informational processing - which a lot of physicists think physics just is
>>> (Tegmark, Carroll, ...) - it could be that chemistry and/or biology is not
>>> reducible to physics = not reducible to pure informational processing.
>>>
>>> This is called *nonreductive materialism*.
>>>
>>>
>>> You might read the sane paper (already available on my URL, see above).
>>> Mechanism protects the machine from (basically) all reductionism,
>>> including the 19th century conception of machine and numbers, and it shows
>>> rather directly that (reductive and non reductive) materialism are both
>>> inconsistent with mechanism.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If you have PDFs of
>>
>>
>> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem.
>> Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
>>
>> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in
>> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
>>
>> I will read those [ email: cloudversed at gmail dot com ].
>>
>>
>>
>> Done.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have read
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>>
>> Two points:
>>
>> 1. Nonreductive materialism holds that physicalism is false.
>> see, for example, https://people.umass.edu/lrb/files/bak06agaM.pdf
>>
>>
>> Indeed. But Comùputationalism, aka Digital Mechanism, makes all form of
>> metaphysical materialism either inconsistent or spurious (like involving
>> involving epicycles or worst “invisible horses”, violating Occam in a some
>> strong sense).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Physicalism came from the idea that everything can be reduced to
>> physics, which turns out to be models of purely quantitative information.
>> See Tegmark's Mathematical Universe.)
>>
>>
>> That can be a subject of discussion later. Tegmark’s form of
>> mathematicalism is still physicalism, although not materialism. But he has
>> progressed toward computationalism, certainly.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. A computation (what I call real computation) that incorporates
>> experiential states (e-states) in addition to informational states
>> (i-states) would be be different from any i-state-only computation
>>
>>
>> Very good! That is recovered in the discourse of the machine which
>> introspect itself (in the the Gödel-Kleene mathematical precise). To
>> confuse a i-state-only and a e-state, is akin to a confusion between first
>> person and third person, or a confusion between []p and []p & p. That is
>> also part of the debate between in between the neoplatonist theologians. A
>> good book illustrating this “Ancient Epistemology,” by Gerson (an expert on
>> Plotinus). You might study my PDF on how I “translate” Plotinus in
>> Arithmetic through the nuance brought by incompleteness on “provability”.
>> Incompleteness makes it from the machine perspective into believability,
>> and by disguishing truth and provability, it gives sense to the standard
>> theory of knowledge of Theaetetus, and it enforces different logics and
>> mathematics for believability, knowability, observability, sensibility.
>> Incompleteness also divides those logics into a machine justifiable (and
>> representational part) and a non justifiable part (still representational)
>> added with non representational, non represensatble part.
>>
>> The observable is the invariant in the ‘bettable', on all (halting)
>> computation (multiplied somehow by the non halting one), that is, with []
>> for Gödel’s beweisbar arithmetical modality (the “Löbian Machine”), what
>> you can “meta-represent” through []p & <>t, and []p & <>t & p. I can
>> motivate for those definition both through through experience, and by using
>> the standard definition of the neoplatonist philosopher/théologian.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (that means any Turing or hyper-Turing or reflective-Turing machine, or
>> anything made of just "numbers”).
>>
>>
>> Maybe you could define what you mean by hyper-Turing machine. I have
>> heard different definitions.
>>
>> Nor am I sure what you mean by made of just numbers. What I assume is
>> that there is a level of description of my “physical body” such that I
>> would survive if my “physical body” is emulated at that level, and this
>> relatively to the normal physical continuations.
>>
>> Many people miss that universal machine (sigma_1 complete theories are
>> such) are confronted to the non computable, and the first person
>> indeterminacy entails that below our substitution level, we are emulated by
>> infinitely many universal number/machine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The latter may emulate consciousness, but will not *be* conscious.
>>
>>
>> Equivalently the consciousness weigh will be of measure null, may be, or
>> you introduce weird zombies.
>>
>> Or you talk about the oracle, the gods are not conscious, I can make some
>> sense of this, but I would judge all possible notion of oracle. The usual
>> sigma_1 machine cannot distinguish an oracle with a machine more complex
>> than itself. Yet by reasoning we can understand that the sigma_1 machine
>> are confronted with some oracle, and “time” is a sort of halting oracle
>> (yet not self-halting oracle) in the limit.
>>
>> People must be careful that the digital surgeon provides them with an
>> authentic Turing machine, or combinator, or any universal number, and not
>> with an hyper-Turing machine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Whether a conscious brain can be be manufactured with totally different
>> elements depends on the e-states different matter can have.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I prefer to not assume matter. My point is that IF we can survive a
>> digital brain transplant at some level, then physics is reduced to a
>> statistics on first person experience on a universal dovetailing (aka the
>> set of all true sigma_1 sentence structured by some modalities of
>> self-reference.
>>
>> The beauty here is that G* shows that all modalities are confronted to
>> the same (sigma_1) truth, but the machine cannot not structured in a non
>> equivalent way (yet related).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We can only make things out of matter, and we can only make new matter
>> with the matter we have.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you have to say no to the digitalis surgeon. All what I say is IF
>> Digital Mechanism is correct, then physics has to be extracted from the
>> modalities of self-reference, and so we can test it. Up to now, the Matter
>> modalities do obey quantum logics, and the hope is that they are enough
>> “hilbertian” to have an equivalent of (arithmetic termed) Gleason theorem.
>>
>> Matter exists phenomenologically with Mechanism, but what exist
>> ontologically is any term of any Turing complete theory, or Turing
>> universal machine.
>>
>> It looks we might work in very different theory.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks!
>
> By hyper-Turing I just mean computing related to doing hyperarithmetic
> (with Turing jumps, etc.)
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperarithmetical_theory ].
>
>
>
> OK. Nice precision. Yes arithmetic is full of Gods (non Turing emulable
> things, person persons). I would invoke them at the least resort, and most
> still obeys to the same theology, that they are Löbian, and obeys to G and
> G*, leading to similar physics than us, but at different level. That was
> seen by Solovay already in his 1976 paper. Boolos explains some of them in
> his 1993 book.
>
>
>
> I think a difference between universal computationalism (or pure
> computationalism) and real computationalism (the "real" word I take from
> Galen Strawson) is my real computationalism is something of a more
> practical (or pragmatist, or even engineering) perspective than a purely
> theoretical perspective:
>
>
> OK. My interest is pragmatical too, but probably more after death than
> before, somehow. It is pragmatical too in the sense that learning to the
> machine’s already existing, despite it still require studying mathematical
> logic, provide a sort of etalon theology helming to compare the human
> theology, especially that there is a theological trap, leading for example
> to irrationalism in the field like when separated from science.
>
> My intellectual interest is in the mind-body problem, and who am I, what
> can be expected, etc.
>
> I am humble enough to know that we cannot know the truth “for sure”, but
> with mechanism, we get a pretty good collection of mathematical tools to
> put some light (and see that things are more complicated than expected).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *PTLOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) = program, language, transformer(compiler/assembler),
> object, substrate*
>
>
> [ draft at
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/ZDKbxJuQYt4/Z7C1ePCzAwAJ
> to be updated soon ]
>
>
> OK.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
I should add that in parallel to mathematical logic and computability
theory and even type theory there is the somewhat more practical subject of
programming language theory (*PLT*).
Any entry point is OK.
https://www.google.com/search?q=progamming+language+theory+books
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory
Some concepts from PLT (continuations, reflective monads, ...) can go back
into mathematica logic.
- pt
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
