> On 19 Apr 2019, at 14:37, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 3:18:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Apr 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >>
> SNIP > The whole point of the fundamental research consists in finding a theory > which account for all theories. The goal is to unify the different > knowledge/belief, without dismissing data (like physics do with respect to > consciousness and qualia). > > The laws of nature are reduce to a statistics of number dream, where a dream > is a computation supporting one, or a collection of Löbian machine(s). > > Bruno > > > > That is sort of a set-up for the the argument of Philip Goff's book. > > > > Galileo's Error > Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness > Philip Goff > https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1117019/galileo-s-error/9781846046018.html > > > If we want a science of consciousness, we will have to rethink what 'science' > is. I am not sure that makes sense. Unless you are pointing on some misconception of science, like the common belief that “science has opted for materialism, when the filed of theology/metaphysics/philosophy-mind/matter has been artificially separated from science for (bad) political purpose, (like genetic has been in the URSS for awhile). I don’t believe in the separation of science and religion. Science is just modesty, never claiming truth, proposing precise enough theory and means of testing them. Science does not really exist. What exists is human having a scientific attitude, and this does not depend on any domain investigated, be it gardening or metaphysics, or theology. The lasting boring debate “God/Not-God” is almost like a trick to make us forget that the original question of the greek was about the reality of the nature: is reality what we see/observe/measure, or is that observable reality only the border, the projection of a deeper and simpler reality. Mathematics/music was conceived as the concurrent reality of physics, in part to the refutation of the earlier Pythagorean conception of numbers (the arithmetical reality kicks back). Science is a fuzzy terms. In the theology of the universal machine, theology itself extends science, but it does it in a justifiable way from a general notion of Truth, itself definable mathematically, when assuming the Mechanist hypothesis, and understanding the need of the act of faith, when saying “yes” to the doctor. The modesty comes from there, notably, and the ethic of mechanism is the right to say “no” to the (digitalist) doctor. > > Understanding how brains produce consciousness is one of the great scientific > challenges of our age. The mechanist solution is that there is no brain, but a web of computations (which provably exist in the arithmetical reality, or any “Turing-complete” reality). Then the appearance of brain is explained by the relative state interpretation of arithmetic, on which all self-referential correct machine can be shown to converge (constructively so at the propositional level, but the general theory is highly undecidable, as we could expect). > Some philosophers argue that the mystery is so deep it will never be solved. With Mechanism, this becomes a (meta) theorem, if by “solve” you mean rationally justify. When a (Löbian) universal machine introspect itself deep enough, it can only blow its mind, it is bigger than the transfinite. When the machine pushes reason far away, she discover that, necessarily if she feel to be sound, there has to be a corona of surrational truth, in between the truth which are rationally justifiable (with or without Oracle) and those which are false (irrational). The machine can understand by reason that there is something above reason, and which is also lawful. If we keep modestly the fact that we need some faith, (yes doctor), then from that we can derive a large portion of the true but non rationally derivable truth. Machines have a negative theology, with non communicable parts except by referring to the non rational character of the hypothesis itself. That is why, actually, it *is* a theology, and after all, it is a form of belief in some type of reincarnation (the digital brain/body). > Others believe our standard scientific methods for investigating the brain > will eventually produce an answer. I can explain why, in the Digital Mechanist frame, we get an answer with the standart scientific method, even if a large part of that answer is that the soul, god, and all that, are only justifiable through the meta-assumption of mechanism, but the level can be as low as we want, to get the consequences. It is just that the stander scientific method apply to mechanism makes the hypothesis of materialism/physicalism testable, and without QM, I would say that Mechanism would be rightly considered refuted. > > In Galileo's Error, Professor Philip Goff proposes a third way, arguing both > approaches are wrongheaded: we struggle to explain consciousness because > physical science, as we currently conceive it, is not designed to deal with > the issue. It is designed to not deal with it, and “matter”, or “nature”, as simplifying hypothesis, is a very fertile idea. But with mechanism, it simply does not work. Physics becomes the science of prediction possible for the universal numbers relatively to the universal numbers. > > Explaining how Galileo's flawed philosophy of nature created the 'problem' of > consciousness in the first place, Goff shows convincingly what we need to do > to solve it. With mechanism, physics is not the fundamental science, as it contradict Aristotle second God (nature, the Physical universe). But the Pythagorean conception, although moribond for long, is plausible again, thanks to the discovery of the universal machine, in the arithmetical reality, and what she discover when looking deep inside, a process itself accelerated by the interactions with other universal machines. Note that the arithmetical reality is big, and there is still room there for testable non mechanist theory of consciousness (but as I say, today the concrete evidence favours Mechanism). 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.
