Hi Benjamin, Hi Lawrence,
> On 17 Oct 2020, at 14:04, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Consciousness is those annoying periods between sleep. Lol (I first misinterpret it!) I would say that the *notion* of consciousness is the “grain of dust” which makes physicalism and the belief in some ontological matter, or ontological universe, inconsistent with Mechanism (Descartes made precise through Turing, Kleene,…)---even with the small amount of Mechanism already used by Darwin, and Mendel, etc. in his theory of evolution and biology. Let me try to explain without being too long. We know, or should know, since the 1930 that the elementary theory of arithmetic is Turing universal, and all models (all interpretations) of simple theories like Robinson Arithmetic, or Peano Arithmetic are Turing universal, and implements all computations (in a sort of bloc-universe way, as arithmetic nor any arithmetical truth are time dependent). Then, it should be obvious that a universal machine cannot feel any difference between being processed by this or that universal machine, so she cannot “feel” any difference between being run by a fortran interpreter emulating a Turing universal subset of the physical laws, or by a subset of the physical laws emulating a Fortran interpreter. But this has an important consequence for Mechanism, which is that to make any prediction, we have to make a statistics on the infinitely many computations going through or computational states. This reduce physics to a probability calculus on the computations, and more: the probability one must be given by provable and consistent (and true, or not, distinguishing first person from first person plural). That leads intuitively to the many-computations interpretation of arithmetic, and with mechanism, we are living there. Then, the math shows that indeed, the many computations, as seen by the universal machine obeys quantum logic, and up to now, mechanism fits with the observation, including consciousness (thanks to the incompleteness separation between G and G* and its intentional variants). I literally predicts the many-world and quantum mechanics from mechanism before I realised that the physicists were already there. I take Darwin as an important motivation for computationalism, and I take quantum physics (and relativity)as important confirmation of the mechanist theory of consciousness. It is very simple, actually(*). Let me abbreviate “provable(‘p’), which is an arithmetical expression (cf Gödel), by “[]p”. “P” is for the sigma_1 sentences (they are equivalent to computation existence assertion, by the normal form theorem of Kleene). Then incompleteness introduces two sort of distinctions: the vertical one and some horizontal one: The vertical are the distinction between the modal logics of the following modal variant of provability: p []p []p & p []p & <>t []p & <>t & p They correspond to Truth Mind (provable) Soul (knowable) Observable-bettable Observable-feelable Or to Parmenides….Plotinus’ distinction between The One (God) The Intellect (Plato’s Nous) The Universal Soul The Intelligible Matter The Sensible Matter But the mathematics of self-reference, which imposes those vertical distinctions, still separates the provable and the true art of those logics, except that it makes no sense for TRUTH, and it happens that the soul ([]p & p) does not split along truth and proof. But the provable, and the two observable logics does, which is very neat, because this is what provides us with a distinction between the provable/communicable observable, and the non provable, non rationally-communicable part of the observable (the qualia): Truth Intellect Intellect Knowable Observable Observable Sensible Sensible The provable part are those mode on the left, and the non provable part are the modes on the right. The quanta and the qualia are given by the provable parts of the observable and the sensible, and the qualia are given by the non provable part of the sensible. No universal machine “sound enough” can miss them. From this we can prove that the soul obeys an intutionistic logic, that the quanta obeys a quantum logic, and that the qualm obeys an intutionistic quantum logic. No need of a creator (personal god) here, and no possibility to invoke a “creation”, i.e. a physical ontological universe to make some computations more real than other, which would violate the mechanist mechanism. We can define consciousness by what is true, non provable, immediately knowable, indubitable, and non definable without invoking some notion of truth (truth is typically not entirely definable by any machine). Paradoxes are avoided by the fact that this is the “theology” of any sound machine, but no machine at all can prove, nor even define in general its own soundness, nor its own consistency (something usually assumed by those who try to use Incompleteness to show we are more than machine, but machines can do that too, and the Löbian machines (see below) can indeed refute any complete theory made about her. Mechanism crush reductionism, as it shows that reductionism fails already for the numbers (with + and *) and the digital machines. The digital (finite) machines knows that infinite machines and structures still play an important role in their own phenomenologies. All universal machines are conscious, but it is a highly dissociated state of consciousness. In fact it is the initial state of consciousness which will enrich itself through histories (computation as seen from some modes) and it is a self-multiplying and self-differentiating consciousness flux, canonically associated to arithmetic, or to any Turing universal machinery, including you (assuming Mechanism). The löbian machines are those who “instinctively” believe in enough induction axioms so that they can prove “p -> []p” about her (keeping in mind that “p” is for a sigma_1 sentence. Those asserts the existence of a number which has a verifiable property. All computations can be reduced to the search of some numbers. If it exists, we can find it, by testing (verifying) it on 0, 1, 2, … until we find it. If its does not exist, this procedure will not stop, and being Turing universal is equivalent with the ability to search for a number which might not exist. Robinson arithmetic (RA) is Turing universal, but not Löbian. “p -> []p” is true about RA. For all true p, RA can prove p. But RA does not believe in any induction axioms, and it is this lack which prevents PA to know its own universality, and she cannot prove all “p -> []p” sentences. Peano arithmetic believes in many induction axioms, making her able to prove “p->[]p” for all p sigma_1, and this shows that she has more powerful introspective ability. Note that Gödel’s beweisbar arithmetical predicate “[]p” is itself sigma_1, and indeed sigma_1 complete, which means here Turing universal. It can’t be said that PA is Turing-Chuch universal, and knows that she is Turing-Church Universal. Löbianity is equivalent with “believing in enough induction axiom”, “believing in its own Turing universality”, “proving its own sigma_1 completeness”. And the Löbian machine can then knows the consequence of its own sigma_1 completeness: its Pi_1 incompleteness. The Löbian machine can prove their own incompleteness theorem. PA can prove that if PA is consistent then PA cannot prove that PA is consistent, and PA can even prove that for a consistent machine the logic of []p differs from the logic of ([]p & p), despite the fact that if the machine is sound, []p and ([]p & p) describes exactly the same part of arithmetic (the sigma_1 true part), but they will still obey different logic and different mathematics. The machine will know that she might search for a number which does not exist, and that’s why their local parents will be anxious as she can go very far, end even never come back…Incompleteness and the observable (tangible, fist person plural) determine a consciousness flux in arithmetic, and the physical realities are the one where the first person plural get sufficiently stable get long, deep and persistent histories. Is there a personal God, less trivial than the whole arithmetical truth (sigma_1; pi_1, sigma_2, pi_2, …). That question might be approximated by “does some very high cardinal plays a role in the machine’s phenomenlogies? The books “Knots and Physics” by Louis Kauffman, + the book by Patrick Dehornoy(**) on the self-distributive structure makes me believe that this makes sense, but that would be long to develop here. In the actual, Aristotelian, paradigm in metaphysics/theology, this machine theology can be described as super-atheist: there is just no creator, nor creation. Just a universal dreamer which lost itself in web of dreams. In the Platonician paradigm, when understanding how few we understand, even and especially on the numbers and the apparent “simple notion”, so we get the transcendent aspect of the arithmetical reality, and the self-referential modes help to delineate the theological from the proper theological, and valid the many traps intrinsic in this field. Let me insist that I don’t know if mechanism is true or false. Thanks to both Darwin and Everett, but also the quantum logics, I would say that the evidences abounds for both the classical theory of consciousness (only sketched here) and for its “weird sort of phenomenological physics” (a sum on all histories). Things go like this: Number(+*) => consciousness => dreams/histories => physical realities => human consciousness => … I could start from any Turing universal machinery, they lead all t the same partially sharable phenomenologies. I use the numbers because addition and multiplication are known by everybody, even non scientists (and doubted only by the Sunday Philosophers). A difference of prediction between Z1* (the true part of []p & <>t & p described above) and Nature would be an evidence for the following disjunction: “mechanism is false OR we belong to some designed simulation”. The left part seems to me a bit to much conspiratorial, so I would personally conclude that Mechanism might be false. I would not exclude simulation by our descendants completely though, in some sense. Bruno (*) The best thorough introduction to G and G¨(the modal logics of self-reference), including a chapter on the variant ([]p &p) is Boolos 1993, the Logic of Provability, Cambridge University Press. It helps to read a good book in Logic, like Mendemson book that I have often refer, or type Eliot Mendelson mathematical logic on some research engine. A recreative book on G is Smullyan’s “Forever Undecided”. Unfortunately it looks a bit like a fairy tale, like often in theology! I say more (of course) in my papers, like: Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 (**) Dehornoy, P. Braids and Self-distributivity. Springer Basel AG, 2000. > > LC > > On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote: > [email protected] > <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988> On Behalf Of Jason > Resch Friday, October 16, 2020 2:42 AM Subject: Re: Stenger on Initial Low > Entropy > > [Philip Benjamin] > > “Is consciousness continuous or discrete? Maybe it's both, argue > researchers?, asks Michel Herzong et al. They refer to the “Zombie within”. > Augustine, the chief architect of Western Civilization, raised the same > question in the 4—th Century. The “Zombie within” has got to be non-entropic, > if it is immortal. That is discussed t in the following post: > > > > [email protected] > <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988> > [email protected] <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988> > Subject: RE: News: Is consciousness continuous or discrete? Maybe it's both, > argue researchers > > > > [Michel Herzong, Leila Drili-Daoudi, and Adrien Doerig]. Trends in Cognitive > Sciences, "All in good time: long-lasting postdictive effects reveal discrete > perception" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.001 > <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.001> > “ Two major theories have fueled a now 1,500 year-long debate started by > Saint Augustine: Is consciousness continuous, where we are conscious at each > single point in time, or is it discrete, where we are conscious only at > certain moments of time? In an Opinion published September 3, in the journal > Trends in Cognitive Sciences, psychophysicists answer this centuries-old > question with a new model, one that combines both continuous moments and > discrete points of time. In psychology, research has focused less on how long > a conscious percept lasts. Rather it has asked whether we are conscious at > all times or only at certain discrete moments of time”. > > [Philip Benjamin] > > Herzong’s “zombie within”, or Augustine’s “inner man” or Plato’s > “soul” are all ideas based on dualism which is not relevant today in the > light of “dark-matter” and its possible chemistry. Astrophysical light-matter > is mostly H and He, while biophysical light-matter consists of 92+ elements > of the Periodic Table. Similarly, astrophysical dark-matter may correspond to > mostly H and He, while biophysical dark-matter (or bio dark-matter) may > correspond to 92+ elements. Human body is made of light-matter and its > chemistry. It is electric, entropic, and mortal. Human “self” (or soul) is > made of dark-matter and its chemistry. If “Self” is made of dark-matter via > its chemistry, the “Self” is nonelectric, nonentropic, conscious and > immortal. The “Light & Dark” twin bodies are cocreated at the moment of > conception. Sub atomic particles of dark-matter may be monopoles, axions > and/or neutrinos with negligible masses relative to electrons, but with the > same mass ratios as in light-matter atoms. Chemistry means chemical bonds > which are spin-governed subatomic particle configurations of duets & octets. > This leads to ordinary physicality of light matter with its chemistry and > extraordinary physicality of dark-matter with its chemistry. Dualism is a > moot point here. Neither Plato nor Augustine had the benefits of the > knowledge of dark-matter and its chemistry. However, it is not excusable > today for any reasonable physical scientist to ignore the two different forms > of physicality. > > Resonance between the twin bodies is the basis of self-awareness. > Resonance is rudimentary recognition. This involves natural frequencies and > therefore will be a continuous process. The non-entropic self is immortal, > but the “Self” itself may be a twin composite, one made of one kind of > dark-matter (the three flavors of neutrinos) and the other of a different > kind (axions and monopoles). The difference by an order of magnitude across > the taxa of biophoton emission rates have been discussed elsewhere including > the publication “Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit”. The missing bio-mass in > the growth and death of organisms (California worms) in hermetically sealed > tubes has bee reported by Amrit Sorli (Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2 The > Additional Mass of Life By Dott Ing and Amrit Sorli; > https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122 <https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122>). > > > > Best regards > > Philip Benjamin CC. Michel Herzong, Ph.D., > École Polytechnique, Switzerland > > > > > > Notes: Most ancient philosophers, including 4- th Century Augustine, > considered human being as a compound of body and soul. The soul is both the > life-giving element and the center of consciousness, perception and thought. > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/ > <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/> “How can soul fulfil its task > of “governing” the body (cf. De quantitate animae 22) if it is incorporeal > itself? And how are corporeal and psychic aspects related to each other in > phenomena that involve both body and soul, especially if, like passions and > desires, these are morally relevant? These problems are further complicated > by the Platonic axiom that incorporeal entities, being ontologically prior to > corporeal ones, cannot be causally affected by them. Augustine’s solution is > indebted to Plotinus’ strategy of making the relation of the soul to the > bodily affections an essentially cognitive one”. > > According to Prof. Herzong, “Unconscious processing is continuous > but conscious precepts are restricted to certain short moments of time…. > Change cannot be perceived immediately. It can only be perceived after it has > happened….. It’s the unconscious zombie within us that has excellent > spatial/temporal resolution,” Herzog says. …. The thoughts and surroundings > are unconsciously updated, and your conscious self uses the updates to see if > they make sense. If not, then you change your route. Conscious processing is > overestimated”. > > The dark unconscious processing period is more weighty. One just believes in > being conscious at each moment of time. “Conversely, the idea of discrete > perception , the concept that humans are only conscious at certain moments in > time, does not define the duration of these discrete moments. > > > > http://augnet.org/en/works-of-augustine/his-spiritual-tradition/2238-interiority/ > > <http://augnet.org/en/works-of-augustine/his-spiritual-tradition/2238-interiority/> > > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/09/06/is-consciousness-continuous-like-a-movie-or-discrete-like-a-flipbook/#69052bf53101 > > <https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/09/06/is-consciousness-continuous-like-a-movie-or-discrete-like-a-flipbook/#69052bf53101> > http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#10 > <http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#10> > > http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11 > <http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11> > https://infidels.org/library/modern/andrew_melnyk/physicalism.html > <https://infidels.org/library/modern/andrew_melnyk/physicalism.html> > Melnyk, Andrew (2007). A Case for Physicalism about the Human Mind > > > > However, scientists, philosophers, and neuroscientists have debated this > for 1,500 years. St. Augustine, one of the great early philosophers of the > mind, pondered how we could be present in short periods of time, but yet > still perceive motion. Even farther back the Abhidharma school of Buddhism > discussed discrete events of consciousness rather than a continual flow. > > https://scit <https://scit/> > echdaily.com/is-consciousness-continuous-or-discrete-scientists-think-its-both/ > > <http://echdaily.com/is-consciousness-continuous-or-discrete-scientists-think-its-both/> > https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousn ess-continuous-discrete-16958/ > <https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousn%20ess-continuous-discrete-16958/> > > > https://voegelinview.com/paradox-consciousness-augustines-confessions-voegelinian-reading-part/ > > <https://voegelinview.com/paradox-consciousness-augustines-confessions-voegelinian-reading-part/> > https://sites.google.com/site/hollysrevisionofreligion/home/religious-ethics/ethical-theory/conscience/augustine-of-hippo-and-his-view-of-the-conscience > > <https://sites.google.com/site/hollysrevisionofreligion/home/religious-ethics/ethical-theory/conscience/augustine-of-hippo-and-his-view-of-the-conscience> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > From: [email protected] > <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988> > <[email protected] > <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988>> > Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:23 PM > To: Consciousness <[email protected] > <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988>>; Cognitive > NeuroScience <[email protected] > <applewebdata://FBE8D56A-BCE0-4768-942D-081EE1979988>> > Subject: [Cognitive Neuroscience Forum] News: Is consciousness continuous or > discrete? Maybe it's both, argue researchers > > > > > > Is consciousness continuous or discrete? Maybe it's both, argue researchers > by Cell Press > > Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain > > Two major theories have fueled a now 1,500 year-long debate started by Saint > Augustine: Is consciousness continuous, where we are conscious at each single > point in time, or is it discrete, where we are conscious only at certain > moments of time? In an Opinion published September 3 in the journal Trends in > Cognitive Sciences, psychophysicists answer this centuries-old question with > a new model, one that combines both continuous moments and discrete points of > time. > > "Consciousness is basically like a movie. We think we see the world as it is, > there are no gaps, there is nothing in between, but that cannot really be > true," says first author Michael Herzog, a professor at the Ecole > Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland. "Change cannot be > perceived immediately. It can only be perceived after it has happened." > > Because of its abstract nature, scientists have struggled to define conscious > and unconscious perception. What we do know is that a person moves from > unconsciousness to consciousness when they wake up in the morning or awake > from anesthesia. Herzog says that most philosophers subscribe to the idea of > continuous conscious perception-because it follows basic human intuition-"we > have the feeling that we're conscious at each moment of time." > > On the other hand, the less-popular idea of discrete perception, which pushes > the concept that humans are only conscious at certain moments in time, falls > short in that there is no universal duration for how long these points in > time last. > > Herzog and co-authors Leila Drissi-Daoudi and Adrien Doerig take the benefits > of both theories to create a new, two-stage model in which a discrete > conscious percept is preceded by a long-lasting, unconscious processing > period. "You need to process information continuously, but you cannot > perceive it continuously." > > Imagine riding a bike. If you fell and waited every half-second to respond, > there would be no way to catch yourself before hitting the ground. However, > if you pair short conscious moments with longer periods of unconscious > processing where the information is integrated, your mind tells you what you > have perceived, and you catch yourself. > > "It's the zombie within us that drives your bike-an unconscious zombie that > has excellent spatial/temporal resolution," Herzog says. At each moment, you > will not be saying to yourself, "move the bike another 5 feet." The thoughts > and surroundings are unconsciously updated, and your conscious self uses the > updates to see if they make sense. If not, then you change your route. > > "Conscious processing is overestimated," he says. "You should give more > weight to the dark, unconscious processing period. You just believe that you > are conscious at each moment of time." > > The authors write that their two-stage model not only solves the > 1,500-year-old philosophical problem but gives new freedom to scientists in > different disciplines. "I think it helps people to completely fuel > information processing for different prospects because they don't need to > translate it from when an object is presented directly to consciousness," > Herzog says. "Because we get this extra dimension of time to solve problems, > if people take it seriously and if it is true, that could change models in > neuroscience, psychology, and potentially also in computer vision." > > Though this two-stage model could add to the consciousness debate, it does > leave unanswered questions such as: How are conscious moments integrated? > What starts unconscious processing? And how do these periods depend on > personality, stress, or disease, such as schizophrenia? "The question for > what consciousness is needed and what can be done without conscious? We have > no idea," says Herzog. > > Explore further > > How the brain produces consciousness in 'time slices' > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > More information: Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Herzong, Drissi-Daoudi, and > Doerig: "All in good time: long-lasting postdictive effects reveal discrete > perception" www.cell.com/trends/cognitive- > <http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-> . 1364-6613(20)30170-4 , DOI: > 10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.001 > Journal information: Trends in Cognitive Sciences > > Provided by Cell Press > > https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-consciousness-discrete.html > <https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-consciousness-discrete.html> > > Posted by > Robert > > > -- > 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/6d9fffbf-62e4-40f0-aee3-d1b677006bc9n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6d9fffbf-62e4-40f0-aee3-d1b677006bc9n%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/054605B3-D2BC-49DF-9F65-6180F2C7A222%40ulb.ac.be.
