Hi Cosmin,
> On 7 Apr 2019, at 14:11, za_wishy via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, > and [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > My book "I Am" has been published on amazon. It deals with my ideas about the > emergent structure of consciousness and the nature of self-reference which > gives birth to the emergent structure, which as far as I know, are new ideas, > so they might prove useful in opening new paths in the attempt of obtaining a > theory of consciousness. > > Kindle version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q4LZVFH > <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q4LZVFH> > Paperback version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1092284397 > <https://www.amazon.com/dp/1092284397> > > (also available for the other amazon national websites) It seems your conclusion fits well with the conclusion already given by the universal machine (the Gödel-Löbian one which are those who already knows that they are Turing universal, like ZF, PA, or the combinators + some induction principle). Self-reference is capital indeed, but you seem to miss the mathematical theory of self-reference, brought by the work of Gödel and Löb, and Solovay ultimate formalisation of it at the first order logic level. You cite Penrose, which is deadly wrong on this. In fact incompleteness is a chance for mechanism, as it provides almost directly a theory of consciousness, if you are willing to agree that consciousness is true, indubitable, immediately knowable, non provable and non definable, as each Löbian machine is confronted to such proposition all the “time”. But this enforces also, as I have shown, that the whole of physics has to be justified by some of the modes of self-reference, making physics into a subbranch of elementary arithmetic. This works in the sense that at the three places where physics should appear we get a quantum logic, and this with the advantage of a transparent clear-cut between the qualia (not sharable) and the quanta (sharable in the first person plural sense). You seem to have a good (I mean correct with respect to Mechanism) insight on consciousness, but you seem to have wrong information on the theory of the digital machines/numbers and the role of Gödel. Gödel’s theorem is really a chance for the Mechanist theory, as it explains that the digital machine are non predictable, full of non communicable subjective knowledge and beliefs, and capable of defeating all reductionist theory that we can made of them. Indeed, they are literally universal dissident, and they are born with a conflict between 8 modes of self-apprehension. In my last paper(*) I argue that they can be enlightened, and this shows also that enlightenment and blasphemy are very close, and that religion leads easily to a theological trap making the machine inconsistent, except by staying mute, or referring to Mechanism (which is itself highly unprovable by the consistent machine). Bruno > > -- > 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.
