> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2021 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you can't >>>> measure consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch. >>>> >>>> > In English language it is used as a noun. Check out a dictionary: >>>> >>>> consciousness noun <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun> >>>> I know, that's what my fourth grade teacher told me too, but I long-ago >>>> realized that neither she nor the lexicographers who wrote that big thick >>>> book are the fonts of all wisdom. >>>> >> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is, and because >>>> >> Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct, consciousness must be >>>> >> an inevitable byproduct of intelligence, therefore "consciousness" is >>>> >> not a noun, it's a word that describes what a noun (in this case the >>>> >> brain) does, in other words consciousness is an adjective. >>>> >>>> > You mean a verb then, no? >>>> >>>> I think adjective fits the bill a little better, I think Tomas Pales is >>>> the way atoms behave when they are arranged in a Tomaspalesian way. >>>> >>>> > consciousness is a spatiotemporal object. >>>> >>>> I disagree, I think asking where my consciousness is located would be like >>>> asking where the number 11 or the color yellow or "fast" is located. If >>>> my brain is in Paris and I'm looking at a TV football game from Detroit >>>> and I'm listening to a friend in Australia on my telephone and I'm >>>> thinking about The Great Wall of China would it make sense to say my >>>> consciousness is really located inside a box made of bone mounted on my >>>> shoulders when I have no conscious experience of being in a bone box on my >>>> shoulders? I don't think so. >>> Yet a sharp blow to that bone box would eliminate your conscious experience >>> at least temporarily. >>> >> Only from the point of view of some conscious subject. From the point of >> view of the person associated to the brain in the box, that does not make >> sense, as it is associated to infinitely many truing universal relation. > > That's incorrect. I've been knocked unconscious and when I regained > consciousness (it was on a few seconds) I realized the gap my conscious > experience.
That does not entail that there were a gap. That entails only that at some moment you experience a feeling that there was a gap, from which you infer that there was a gap, but maybe you are just amnesic about your consciousness during the gap, or perhaps, you were really unconscious, but by definition, that is not part of the experience. Anyway, my point is that you survived the knocking. Not that you feel there has been a gap, which by the way, confirms your first person survival. > >> >> The body is only a map on infinitely many histories. That can be proved both >> with QM-without-collapse, or in any non trivial combinatory algebra (like a >> model of arithmetic). >> >> >>> So there's something there that is essential to your consciousness. >> >> What is “essential” are the infinitely many computations. >> >> Since the 1930s we know that all computations are realised in any model (in >> the logician sense) of arithmetic, or of combinatory logic (Kxy = x, Sxyz = >> xz(yz)). > > But not in any brain...they are only finite. The theories, words, axioms, machines, brains are all finite, but the semantic are not, the model of any Turing complete theory is always infinite, and provably realise all finite and infinite computation. String and Gravity loop theories are also finite, independently that their model are all infinite. > >> >> I know that this contradict 1492 years of materialist brainwashing, but >> “appearance of matter” are explained in arithmetic, and get contradictory >> when associated or singularised through any supplementary axioms, even the >> induction axioms used to define what an observer can be. >> >> You assume some ontological commitment inconsistent with Mechanism here. > > You assume an ontological commitment to Church-Turing infinite computations. No. I assume Elementary Arithmetic, i.e.the natural numbers, or the combinator, and their basic laws, or any Turing universal machinery (the phi_i). All physical theories assumes more than this. By assuming less, we lost the ability token define what is a digital machine. The existence of the infinite computations is then proved by the Löbian machine simulated by the numbers (sigma_1) relations, who have the induction axiom, and can handle the infinite, like PA can prove the existence of an infinity of prime numbers, or of natural numbers, bu proving that AxEy(y bigger that x). The theory is just: Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz). But an observer is a combinator which believes in those two formula, but also in the induction axioms: [A(K) and A(S) and for all x, y ((A(x) & A(y)) -> A(xy)) ] -> for all x A(x). We can come back on this if you have a trouble with the fact that the ontology assumes less than any of the internal observer. This is based on the fact that RA can simulate ZF proving the consistency of RA, but RA cannot prove its consistency, like a "dumb machine” can simulate ZF, or Einstein, without necessarily adopting ZF or Einstein’s belief. 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/59fe7a9a-edce-6a41-3945-8bb4104efa44%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/59fe7a9a-edce-6a41-3945-8bb4104efa44%40verizon.net?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/1E50FC09-6647-4668-87B9-9317C3E942E8%40ulb.ac.be.
