On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:57:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2019, at 21:01, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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/2018/12/14/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/ ] …
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
 

*Slime Mold Can Solve Exponentially Complicated Problems in Linear Time*

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/slime-mold-problems-linear-time-06759.html


- 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.

Reply via email to