On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 11:23:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2019, at 14:37, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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]> 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 > > > > This is the "Error" (according to Goff):
Science has (previously) opted for a purely information-oriented materialism ignoring experience. incorporating experience into science - where psychical qualia are properties of matter, like physical quanta of charge e, or magnetic flux h/2e - is the "new science" -- an experiential materialism. - 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]. 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.
