On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:42:50 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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]> 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 >
Here Philip Goff has a (40 min.) recent talk on the "Error": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FuGYsHp1U8 At the end he references: https://philarchive.org/archive/MRCITI - 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.
