> On 4 May 2020, at 16:39, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "Self-reference" in programming - going back to Brian Smith's 3-Lisp > > http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar19_86/p19-smith.pdf > <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 > > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/Self.pdf>
Brain smith theory is basically the same theory as the theory of Gödel’s beweisbar (he is aware of this). But he missed the platonic nuances, which I explained either through tough experiment, or using the greek definitions (as they anticipated all this through the “dream argument”t). The platonic nuances are imposed by incompleteness. Although it is true (provable in G*) that []p, []p & p, ..; are all equivalent (see the same portion of the arithmetical reality), the machine cannot see those equivalence, and from the machine’s point of view, they are not equivalent, and indeed less to a different logic and mathematics for each one of those. []p obeys a logic of credibility, []p & p obeys a (intuitionist) logic of knowledge, []p & <>p obeys a quantum logic, []p & <>t & p obeys a quantum institionist logic, at the G* level. All this are theorem in arithmetic, and obtained by any arithmetically sound universal machine numbers. Some people missed that all computation are emulated (semantically) in all models of elementary arithmetic. We know that since the 1930s. Bruno > > @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 >> > <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 >> > <http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness> >> > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9597f679-52f6-4504-9004-04e1fe45e61b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/43618544-67AF-43EF-BEB8-1DD8B86C48CF%40ulb.ac.be.
