"Self-reference" in programming - going back to Brian Smith's 3-Lisp
http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar19_86/p19-smith.pdf - is a bit not-quite-real in the context of "The Self" of consciousness (self) realism (Galen Strawson). http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/Self.pdf @philipthrift On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:59:04 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > Self-reference is a case where the computation is not complete or can't be > quantified. We might then consider consciousness as a strange-loop where > the process can't be quantified, or any attempt to do so will always exceed > the capacity of the processor. > > LC > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell: >> >> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: >> >> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: >> > The SSH >> > >> > https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 >> > >> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT >> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. >> > >> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of >> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but >> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new >> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). >> > >> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness >> > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness >> > >> > etc. >> > >> > * or physicalist >> > >> > @philipthrift >> >> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other >> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against >> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one >> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people >> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their >> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist >> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see >> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is >> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just >> that. >> >> Saibal >> >> >> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. >> >> >> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question? >> >> Telmo. >> >> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about >> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous >> centuries to underlie biology. >> >> LC >> >> >> >> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9597f679-52f6-4504-9004-04e1fe45e61b%40googlegroups.com.
