> On 19 Apr 2019, at 19:42, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> 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] <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 >> >> <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.
That is a consequence of the separation of theology from science. We have been forced to buy the existence of a creator and a creation. Different theologies where soon to be rejected, and rationalist theologian have been persecuted, since 529 in Occident, and 1248 is the Middle-East. Materialist theologies are know for having put the mind-body under the rug. With mechanism, materialism (in the weak sense of assuming some rirreductible ontological matter, or even physicalism) is simply wrong. Equivelnetly, with materialism, mechanism is simply wrong. If we look at the data, we find evidences (many) for mechanism, but none for materialism. Religion is based on a special first person experience, but organise or institutionalised religion are trick by Tyran to prevent people to do that experience, because it makes you soul immune to argument of authority, which makes you a threat for the tyrans and the manipulators. It is not that science has opted for anything, it is that a fake theology has imposed the belief in a fundamental matter into a dogma. Today, that dogma, to my great astonishment, is still obligatory in some academies, mostly based on a strong, non-agnostic, atheism, with the usual fake symptom of believing that their god is more real than the other, which might be true, but cannot be invoked in a scientific argument, especially in theology. > > incorporating experience into science I guess you mean assessing the experiential data, and accepting theories about them. The personal experience itself cannot be invoked in science, as it is not expressible. (That is actually the error of the materialist when they knocks the table to “prove” that matter exists. > - where psychical qualia are properties of matter, That is adding a mystery to a mystery. Why assumes Matter when nobody has been able to figure out what it is, except rule of history prediction. Psychical qualia seems to me rather immaterial, although quite real, but I don’t see how they could be an attribute of matter, nor what is matter, except as the statistics on the first person experience of the average universal number. > like physical quanta of charge e, or magnetic flux h/2e - is the "new > science" -- an experiential materialism. Even if mechanism is false, the notion of matter remains dubious to me. Now, with infinitely many axioms, we can have some matter, but you will need a highly non computable theory of the mind, which still not exist. You cannot identify the soul or the first person (the owner of the first person experience) with any 3p attribute, calling it matter, without evidence for such matter, seems to me to make things more complex than needed. It also introduces an infinity of p-zombies in the arithmetical reality, and threat to make human doing again the error of feeling superior to some other entities. On the contrary, with Mechanism, we can exploit the failure of reductionism given by the incompleteness phenomenon to a big extent. The universal machine rich enough to know its own universality (the Gödel-Löbian, or simply Löbian machine) has an incredible rich and sophisticated theology, containing the explanation of the origin of matter, in a constructive way, so let us just see if she has the right physics, and indeed, up to know it fits, even if it promotes what some people are still shocked by, which is a many-histories structures obeying to those strange quantum principles. If Philipp Goff is open to the falsity of materialism, he should be interested in the theology of the machine, which shows that the universal machine demolish constructively all complete theories abut her. The universal machine knows that she has a soul, and that her soul is not amenable to *any* pure 3p explanations, even the non-mechanistic one (which in the case of mechanism are just magic added to magic). One mystery remains: the natural numbers. But that one is meta-explained away by the failure of logicism: we just cannot derive the axioms of elementary arithmetic, or Turing equivalent, from anything else. 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.
