> On 4 May 2020, at 14:15, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
Esher hands points on the usual third person self-reference is which computer science excels, as the theorem of Kleene completely explains constructively, and the basic idea is already in the combinator Mx = xx, as MM will give MM, etc. For biology there is one more nuance to add, but I don’t want to be long. All that works in the realm of the third person beliefs. But this self-reference does not make the link with the first person that you need for explaining consciousness and qualia. As Gödel saw, the logic of that 3p self-reference obeys G, not a logic of knowledge S4. In particular G does not prove []p ->p. But that is why the Theatetus definition makes sense here. To define knowledge by true belief ([∏p & p), and arithmetic makes it possible to arithmeticize this without defining a predicate (which can be shown to NOT exist), so the logic of ([]p & p) which implies p trivially, provides a logic of a non nameable/3p-describable first person, obey a logic of knowledge, already with a temporal subjectivity (close to Brouwer and Bersgson). That solves the consciousness part of the consciousness/matter problem. Then, the matter problem is solved constructively by the restriction on the sigma_1 sentences (the leaves of the universal dpevtalg in arithmetic), and that can be tested, and indeed the test are already done for many part of it, and thanks to quantum logic, it fits rather well, and here too, we get a clear separation of quanta and qualia. > I have far more confidence in physics Me to. Only physics can test if physicalism is true or false, and the physical facts get until now favour mechanism and immaterialism, I would say. Mechanism looks mystical, and is in a great part, as he says that the “truth” is in your head, and nowhere else. But Mechanism is also empirical, as it says that the “physical truth” is in the head of all universal machine/number, so extract it and compare with what we observe. If it is different and incompatible, mechanism is false (or we are in a normal second order simulation, but that is the conspiracy move, which can be made with any theory). > than I do in hopeful ideas about qualia, which are psychological form of elan > vital thought in previous centuries to underlie biology. Qualia are facts, even if hard to share. You cannot discard them as illusion. It is like a doctor saying to his patient that his pain is an illusion. That makes no sense. Elan Vitale is a typical “religion from ignorance”: it is a theory saying that another theory cannot solve a problem. It is perhaps right, in the sense that we can call elementary arithmetic an élan vitale perhaps. But this reverse the charge, and primary matter is what looks like a “religion from ignorance”. Elan vitale without more precision is like God without a precise (testable) theology. Molecular biology has eliminated it, rightly. And the same will happen with materialism and physicalism, because it does not work, eliminate consciousness and persons, and contradicts Mechanism for which tuns of evidences exist. To sum up: élan vital is bs. Yet, qualia are just a type of data that any serious theory of everything must explained. And I think mechanism does explain it, in testable way, so let us pursue the test. Bruno > > 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/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%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/FE091932-3BC9-46BF-AB47-185154735A44%40ulb.ac.be.
