> On 4 May 2019, at 02:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/3/2019 1:35 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:19 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On 5/3/2019 11:44 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> I think that is right. But when you consider some simplified cases, e.g. a >>> computation written out on paper (or Bruno's movie graph) it becomes >>> apparent that consciousness must ultimately refer to other things. >>> >>> Right, the movie graph argument shows that consciousness doesn't supervene >>> on physical computation. Nevertheless, the character of my consciousness >>> still corresponds with the kind of cybernetic system implemented by e.g. my >>> brain and body, as instantiated by the infinity of programs >>> going through my state. >> >> What makes it "your state"? It's just a bunch of programs. Why those >> programs and not others? >> >> It's the set of programs that implements the body/brain used to construct my >> inner world. > > But that doesn't explain why there is such a thing as "your inner world" that > is separate from "my inner world". Why don't the programs produce > overlapping or mixing "inner worlds". > >>> >>> Much is made of "self-awareness" but this is usually just having an >>> internal model of one's body, or social standing or some other model of the >>> self. It is not consciousness of consciousness...that is only a temporal >>> reflection: "I was conscious just now." >>> >>> I see it a little differently. The self-model/ego is a higher-order >>> construct that organizes the system in a holistic way. >> >> ? That sounds like a kind of dualism. You're postulating something that >> creates a "higher-order construct". If you're following Bruno's idea things >> have to just come out of the UD threads. There's nothing to create anything >> more. >> >> For the self-image construct, I mean 'construct' in the same way that >> anything we learn is a construct. The self-image represents a higher-order >> construct on top of the types of constructs that, say, a dog might employ. A >> dog has a self-image of a certain type, but with humans (for whom I'll call >> the self-image 'ego' to differentiate from animal self-image), the ego's >> construction is conceptual and requires language. The ego is a narrative, >> and that narrative acts to organize the system as a whole. >> >> >>> We take this for granted - it's the water we swim in - but our minds are >>> radically re-organized as children by the taught narrative that we have an >>> identity >> >> You don't have teach a kid he has an identity. He knows who's hungry. He >> has a view point. >> >> >> Just like a dog. But a kid knows his name (learned) and can answer the >> question, "why did you do that?". The answer to that question is also >> largely learned. We are told who to be, what's right, wrong, appropriate, >> taboo, etc., for the culture we grow up in. IOW why I do something is >> filtered through learned cultural constructs. Most of the time the answer >> amounts to a justification in terms of what's appropriate, logical, or some >> other descriptor that benefits me in some way relative to the implicit >> values I'm socialized to. This form of self-image is of a higher order than >> whatever self-image my dog has. > > I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't see that any of it is entailed > by there being the infinite programs of the UD.
Just to be precise, all programs are finite. The universal programs/machine/number are finite. The UD is a finite object, a number itself. The computations can be infinite. Like "being prime” has an infinite extension (meaning). Whatever 3-p things does the UD, is provable in Robinson arithmetic. The 1p-things of the machine do escape the ontological realities. Arithmetic seen from inside is infinitely bigger and complex than the 3p arithmetic. The Löbian machine all know this already. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6D072486-E78C-4164-938B-AAC75C56DC81%40ulb.ac.be. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
