> On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:43, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two recent books:
>>> 
>>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>>> Arthur S. Reber
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
>>> <https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ>
>>> 
>>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
>>> <https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ>
>>> 
>>> via
>>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>>  
>>> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin>
>> 
>> 
>> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
>> machine’s theology.
>> 
>> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind the 
>> necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of others, to 
>> test this later …).
>> 
>> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” belief/anticipation 
>> concerning a possible reality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>> 
>>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>> 
>> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number are 
>> conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>> 
>> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
>>> ago. 
>> 
>> 
>> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
>> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
>> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>> 
>> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which does 
>> the history selection was there “before”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>>> ago (Reber). 
>> 
>> 
>> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
>> stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
>> entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
>>> ago. 
>> 
>> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying the 
>> logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case thanks 
>> to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p and []p 
>> & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>> 
>> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there before”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>> 
>> 
>> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
>> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
>> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
>> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
>> (grin).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>>> around 560 million years ago. 
>> 
>> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when 
>> they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think 
>> that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of 
>> reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a 
>> surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, 
>> and the second times she run away!
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>>> years ago. [Thagard]
>> 
>> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but of 
>> course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
>> languages develops … 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>> 
>> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>> 
>> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
>> stupidity, begin to develop.
>> 
>> Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each 
>> other.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
>>> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>> 
>> Birth of the little ego. Birth of cruelty and the human suffering.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>>> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>> 
>> Negation of the first person indubitable: you don’t exist. Dennett is 
>> logically correct, as this follows from its ontological commitment in both 
>> primary matter and Mechanism. 
>> 
>> Of course, it is simpler to just omit such an ontological commitment.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dennett is (or was - Philip Goff suggested he might have changed his mind 
>> last year) a phony materialist,
> 
> I would like to see a quote by Dennet saying he changed his opinion, if you 
> find one.
> Dennett is a rather nice guy, and his book with Hofstadter “Mind’s I” is the 
> closer book to the universal machine theology. His book “brainstorms” was 
> rather good, and I did appreciate his amount of lucidity against his own 
> theory of consciousness shown in “Consciousness explained”, so I would not 
> been astonished he changed its mind on this, as I would expect. But his 
> materialism seems quite entrenched also. So ...
> 
> 
> 
>> since a real materialist believes in the "first-class" status of (material) 
>> experience (like Epicurus did).
> 
> 
> I suspect some word play here. “Material experience” is an oxymoron, once you 
> assume computationalism. An experience is not a material things. It is not 
> made of energy, wave or anything physical. That why non eliminativist 
> materialist have to bring some identity thesis to associate mind and matter, 
> but that is what leads to the mind-body problem and its apparent 
> unsolvability. With mechanism, matter is conceptually explain as persistent 
> hallucination by numbers. Those hallucination obeys the laws of computer 
> science / arithmetic, and are constrained enough to give rise to the quantum 
> logic of the observable. So we get a theory of matter, well verified by the 
> empirical facts, from a theory of consciousness, where consciousness admits a 
> semi-axiomatic definition, as above.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Dennett may have changed his mind was only from a recent tweet from 
> Philip Goff (who speaks with him). I do not know what Dennett's position is 
> today, February 14, 2019. But earlier:
> 
> https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
> 
> Ned Block once remarked that Dennett’s attempt to fit consciousness or 
> “qualia” into his theory of reality “has the relation to qualia that the US 
> Air Force had to so many Vietnamese villages: he destroys qualia in order to 
> save them.”
> 
> ...
> 
> This is how philosophers in the twentieth century came to endorse the Denial, 
> the silliest view ever held in the history of human thought. “When I squint 
> just right,” Dennett writes in 2013, “it does sort of seem that consciousness 
> must be something in addition to all the things it does for us and to us, 
> some special private glow or here-I-am-ness that would be absent in any 
> robot… But I’ve learned not to credit the hunch. I think it is a flat-out 
> mistake, a failure of imagination.” His position was summarized in an 
> interview in The New York Times: “The elusive subjective conscious 
> experience—the redness of red, the painfulness of pain—that philosophers call 
> qualia? Sheer illusion.” If he’s right, no one has ever really suffered, in 
> spite of agonizing diseases, mental illness, murder, rape, famine, slavery, 
> bereavement, torture, and genocide. And no one has ever caused anyone else 
> pain.
> 
> This is the Great Silliness. We must hope that it doesn’t spread outside the 
> academy, or convince some future information technologist or roboticist who 
> has great power over our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Strawson, I am an experiential materialist - or qualia materialist, or 
> psychical materialist. (This is also what he calls "hard-nosed" materialist.) 


I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter, because I have 
never seen any evidence for it. Even in my “molecular biology” period, which 
taught me the basic of the Mechanist idea, I was not taking seriously the idea 
that atoms and particles are made of something. The antic dream argument, which 
I think all kids find by themselves (but not all develop the interest to dig 
more on this) is enough to rise doubt that matter exist, or make sense.
Then with mechanism, matter is provably “redundant or contradictory”. But 
without mechanism, we can virtually make any ontological commitment we want, 
and I’m afraid this leads to the “fairy tale” theory, like I think materialism 
is already a sort of fairy tale.
The only think which could change my mind would be a violation by nature of the 
three quantum logics of the material hypostases (the six of them, actually, but 
we already know indirectly that physics has few chance to appear exclusively in 
the communicable/provable material modes of self-reference.

Don’t hesitate to find some argument in favour of primitive materials, but in 
my opinion, this is highly speculative, and never used in physics. It is just a 
bad habit we have since Aristotle, who did not understood Plato’s argument.

Matter is like God, in the sense of the greeks, which means that it is 
something that we have to explain, and this without invoking an ontological 
commitment, except as last resort. It isa bit like the error of invoking Alien 
each time we find something weird in the cosmos. Possible, but without very 
strong evidence, it is more an abandon of trying to understand, than an 
explanation per se.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> 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 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