> On 10 Jan 2019, at 21:01, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 11:20:20 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Jan 2019, at 11:20, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:44:40 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jan 2019, at 15:20, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> In terms of processing, I distinguish experience processing from >>> information processing. >> >> >> OK. That is important, but the machines do that too. Information processing >> is like computing and proving, and can be described in 3p terms. It is the >> “[]p” in the list of self-referential modes. But the (Löbian) machine is >> aware that she cannot know, nor even define precisely, her own correctness, >> and that she cannot prove, if true, the equivalence between []p and “[]p & >> p”, so she is bounded to find Theatetetus definition of the soul or of the >> knower, which is pure 1p, and does not admits any pure 3p description. I >> would say that this might corresponds to your “experience” processing. >> >> Then, eventually the notion of “matter” can be explained in term of the >> number experience processing (sharable for the quanta, and non sharable for >> the qualia). There is no need to invoke some inert substance that nobody can >> define nor test. >> >> All computers (physical universal machine) and the non material universal >> machine are equivalent with respect to computability and emulability. Please >> note that they are NOT equivalent with respect to provability, even if, when >> self-referentially correct, their provability predicate will all obey to the >> same theology (G*), but will differ in their interpretation, contents, etc. >> >> Bruno >> >>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/ >>> <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/> >>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/material-semantics-for-unconventional-programming/ >>> >>> <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/material-semantics-for-unconventional-programming/> >>> >>> - pt >>> >> >> This is interesting for a programming semantics (e.g. denotational) >> perspective, for experiential processing. >> >> This reminds me of Galen Strawson's argument (which has nothing to do with >> stochasticism or determinism) about "ree will. He has a definition of "self" >> such that your self is a real thing > > OK. > > > >> (that includes your consciousness, which is also a real thing), > > OK. > > >> and to say your self has free will can't really be right, since you can't >> say (seriously) "I am free to not be my self" (since it is your self that is >> doing that): Whatever you chose, it is your self that is choosing. > > > Once a universal machine introspect itself relatively to some universal > number, it becomes aware that it can predict itself completely and free-will > is a vague term alluding to the management of decision in absence of complete > information. > > > >> >> >> >> "Experience Processing": Maybe not this year [ International Conference on >> Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation 2019 >> http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/ <http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/> ] … > > I recently (it is nt used in my papers) consider that it implies a lot to > admit that all universal machine are maximally conscious, and that the > provability predicate (seen as an ideal self-referentially correct > brain/body) only filters the consciousness of the universal machine. When > unrpogrammed, and without input, its consciousness is quite different from > the mundane consciousness, it is more like a highly dissociated state of > consciousness, out of time and space, which needs a lot of spatio-temproral > experiences to develop the aproprioperception of a body. In the humain brain, > that sense is basically innate. > > The experience is not “processed” by a code, it is a truth filtered by a > body/code. > > Bruno > > > > > It the brain is biocomputing, as the human is a biocomputer [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_biocomputer ], then it is indeed > processing experience. (Processing is what computers do.)
Does biocomputing violate Church’s thesis? If yes, give me a biocomputable function from N to N which is not Turing-computable. If no, then the biocomputation are realised in arithmetic, and biology, like physics emerge from a statistics on all those computations. That can be tested (and has been). Bruno > > - 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 [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.
