On 7/12/2021 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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 lexicographerswho 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 littlebetter,I think Tomas
Palesis 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.
I didn't say anything about it being part of my experience. But is was
part of bystanders experience. And the laws of physics proceeded in
evolving without me.
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.
Do you deny that there was a physical world that evolved during that gap?
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.
Only because you choose axioms and rule of inference that make it
provable...which is much weaker than demonstrable.
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,
Which are infinite.
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.
You also seems to have lost the ability to predict what things happen
and what don't.
Brent
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]
<mailto:[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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1E50FC09-6647-4668-87B9-9317C3E942E8%40ulb.ac.be?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/13a4b26f-88ca-718c-02da-135912cc5171%40verizon.net.
