On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> When will that day come when people actually first read the papers and > then comment ? Oh, God! > I read your paper. I am sorry if you did not find my comments or references helpful. Jason > > On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 19:18:25 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I invite you to discover my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World" >>> which is the theory of everything that people searched for millennia. It >>> can be found on my philpeople profile: >>> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan >>> >> >> Hi Cosmin, >> >> Very nice, and very original work. >> >> A few comments and questions, written as they occurred to me: >> >> >> The idea of self reference being larger and smaller than itself made me >> think of how the universe can be thought of as much larger than us, but all >> our thoughts and ideas about the universe are contained within our skulls. >> I am not sure if this is an example of the kind of paradox of self >> reference that you describe but I thought I would ask. >> >> >> Your bootstrapping of nothing into something via self reference made me >> think of the following example. Start with the sentence: >> >> "Every rule has an exception" >> This is a self referential sentence, which can be either true or false. >> If it is false, then there are rules without exceptions (i.e. laws). If it >> is true, then "every rule has an exception" would also be a rule, and if it >> has an exception, then again we reach the conclusion that there are some >> rules without exceptions (i.e. laws), so this self refuting sentence >> implies a universal truth, the existence of laws. >> >> >> Another comment: >> Fractals are objects defined through their self reference, is any special >> attention owed to them? What about numbers such as e? Or steps in a >> recursive computational relation (steps of the evolving game of life >> universe might be conceived of as a recursive function, for example). >> >> >> What would you consider the simplest possible program that had >> consciousness to be? That is, what is the shortest bit of code that would >> manifest consciousness of something (even a single bit)? >> >> >> I agree to that the difficulty of explaining or communicating qualia >> stems from what me might call self-reference islands. Each of us is trapped >> within an isolated context, from which we have qualia of various kinds but >> no common framework established between other minds that enable >> communication beyond this island. Think of the analogous situation of >> people in two different universes or AIs in two different computer >> simulations, trying to define what they mean by a metered or a kilogram. >> These terms are meaningless and incommunicable outside the particular >> universe, since they are terms wholly defined by relationships that exist >> only within a particular universe or simulation. There not only can be no >> agreement on what is meant by those terms, but they aren't even definable >> (outside the contextual island that exists only within that universe). For >> we consciousness beings, we each have such a universe of qualia in our own >> heads, and these are similarly undefinable beyond the context of our inner >> view. >> >> >> >> >> As for the ontology that results, your work reminded me of these works >> that contain related ideas (of self-reference, observer-centric, >> nothing-based means of bootstrapping reality): >> >> >> Bruno Marchal's "The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body >> problem" >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236138701_The_computationalist_reformulation_of_the_mind-body_problem >> >> >> Mark F. Sharlow's "Can Machines Have First-Person Properties?" >> https://archive.is/rDP33 >> >> >> Markus Muller's >> "Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic >> information theory" >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826 >> >> David Pearce's "The Zero Ontology" >> https://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm >> >> Stephen Wolfram's "The Concept of the Ruliad" >> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/ >> >> And Russell Standish's "Theory of Nothing" >> https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html >> >> I have written an article which reaches similar conclusions: >> >> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/ >> >> Note that while I focus more on the mathematics than self-reference, I do >> see self-reference (in consciousness) as being a key step in the process of >> realizing an apparent reality, providing a first person localized >> perspective out of objective mathematical truths and number relations. >> >> >> >> Here are some quotes and references you may appreciate from others who >> have seen a key role of self-reference in the definition of consciousness: >> >> Douglas Hofstadter's notion of "Strange Loop" >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop >> >> “In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages >> that are little miracles of self-reference.” >> — Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, p. 363 >> >> WHO SHOVES WHOM AROUND INSIDE THE CAREENIUM? OF WHAT IS THE MEANING OF >> THE WORD "I"? - DOUGLAS R. HOFSTADTER - 1982 >> - >> https://jsomers.net/careenium.pdf >> - >> “The real point is, there's only ONE MECHANISM underlying "I-ness": >> namely, the circling-back of a complex representation of the system >> together with its representations of all the rest of the world. Which >> “I” you are is determined by the WAY you carry out that cycling, >> and the way you represent the world.” >> >> “In a sense, Gödel’s Theorem is a mathematical analogue of the fact that >> I cannot understand what it is like not to like chocolate, or to be a bat, >> except by an infinite sequence of ever-more-accurate simulation processes >> that converge toward, but never reach, emulation. I am trapped inside >> myself and therefore can’t see how other systems are. Gödel’s Theorem >> follows from a consequence of the general fact: I am trapped inside myself >> and therefore can’t see how other systems see me. Thus the >> objectivity-subjectivity dilemmas that Nagel has sharply posed are somehow >> related to epistemological problems in both mathematical logic, and as we >> saw earlier, the foundations of physics.” (Hofstader in Mind’s I) >> -- Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett in "The Mind’s I" (1981) >> >> >> >> “There was a man who said though, >> it seems that I know that I know, >> what I would like to see, >> is the eye that knows me, >> when I know that I know that I know.” >> - >> “This is the human problem, we know that we know.” >> -- Alan Watts >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Q2xNqKvnE >> >> >> “Even for the universal machine doing nothing more than >> self-introspection, her consciousness (related to []p & p) is not >> definable, for reason related to the fact that knowledge and truth are not >> definable by any machine, when the range of that knowledge and truth is >> vast enough to encompass the machine itself.” >> -- Bruno Marchal >> >> >> “You need self-reference ability for the notion of belief, together with >> a notion of reality or truth, which the machine cannot define. >> To get immediate knowledgeability you need to add consistency ([]p & >> <>t), to get ([]p & <>t & p) which prevents transitivity, and gives to the >> machine a feeling of immediacy.” >> -- Bruno Marchal >> >> “It is not because some “information processing” could support >> consciousness that we can conclude that all information processing can >> support consciousness. You need at least one reflexive loop. You need two >> reflexive loop for having self-consciousness (Löbianity)." >> -- Bruno Marchal >> >> >> “The appearance of a universe, or even universes, must be explained by >> the geometry of possible computations of possible machines, seen by these >> machines".” >> -- The Amoeba’s Secret - Bruno Marchal 2014 >> https://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/amoebassecret.pdf page 140 >> >> >> “To exist, it must have cause–effect power; to exist from its own >> intrinsic perspective, independent of extrinsic factors, it must have >> cause–effect power upon itself: its present mechanisms and state must ‘make >> a difference’ to the probability of some past and future state of the >> system (its cause–effect space)” >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167 >> (Tononi Koch, IIT paper) >> >> >> “More broadly one could say that, through the human being, the universe >> has created a mirror to observe itself.” - David Bohm, The Undivided >> Universe, Routledge, 2002, pp. 389 >> >> “A many minds theory, like a many worlds theory, supposes that, >> associated with a sentient being at any given time, there is a multiplicity >> of distinct conscious points of view. But a many minds theory holds that it >> is these conscious points of view or ‘minds,’ rather than ‘worlds’, that >> are to be conceived as literally dividing or differentiating over time.” >> – Michael Lockwood in “‘Many Minds’. Interpretations of Quantum >> Mechanics” (1995) >> >> >> “It is sometimes suggested within physics that information is fundamental >> to the physics of the universe, and even that physical properties and laws >> may be derivative from informational properties and laws. This “it from >> bit” view is put forward by “Wheeler (1989, 1990) and Fredkin (1990), and >> is also investigated by papers in Zurek (1990) and MAtzke (1992, 1994). If >> this is so, we may be able to give information a more serious role in our >> ontology. [...] >> This approach stems from the observation that in physical theories, >> fundamental physical states are effectively individuated as information >> states. When we look at a feature such as mass or charge, we find simply a >> brute space of differences that make a difference. Physics tells us nothing >> about what mass is, or what charge is: it simply tells us the range of >> different values that these features can take on, and it tells us their >> effects on other features. As far as physical theories are concerned, >> specific states of mass or charge might as well be pure information states: >> all that matters is their location within an information space.” >> -- David Chalmers in "The Conscious Mind" (1996) >> >> >> >> "A cat. >> A cat is seen. >> Something seen, must be a seer. >> I see a cat. >> I exist. >> What is I?" >> -- Jason >> >> >> "Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain’s simulation of the world >> becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself. Obviously the >> limbs and body of a survival machine must constitute an important part of >> its simulated world; presumably for the same kind of reason, the simulation >> itself could be regarded as part of the world to be simulated. Another word >> for this might indeed be “self-awareness,” >> -- Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett in "The Mind’s I" (1981) >> >> >> These quotes get to the heart of the difficulty of self reference, and >> the difference between being vs. describing: >> >> “As we discussed in the first chapters of this book, the study of >> consciousness as a scientific subject casts a sharp light on a special >> problem faced by the scientific observer. As long as his description leaves >> out his phenomenal experience and he can assume that such experience is >> present in another observer, they both can give a description of the >> physical world from a “God’s-eye” view. When the observer turns his >> attention to the description of consciousness, however, he must face some >> challenging issues. These issues include the fact that consciousness is >> embodied uniquely and privately in each individual; that no description, >> scientific or otherwise, is equivalent to the experience of individual >> embodiment; that there is no judge deciding categories in nature except for >> natural selection; and that the external description of information by the >> observers as a code in the brain leads to paradox. These issues pose a >> challenging set of problems: how to provide an adequate description of >> higher brain functions; how information arises in nature; and, finally, how >> we know–the central concern of epistemology.” >> -- Gerald Maurice Edelman and Giulio Tononi in "A Universe of >> Consciousness" (2000) >> >> >> “Our analysis has predicated on the notion that while we can construct a >> sensible scientific theory of consciousness that explains how matter >> becomes imagination, that theory cannot replace experience: Being is not >> describing. A scientific description can have predictive and explanatory >> power, but it cannot directly convey the phenomenal experience that depends >> on having an individual brain and body. In our theory of brain complexity, >> we have removed the paradoxes that arise by assuming only the God’s-eye >> view of the external observer and, by adhering to selectionism, we have >> removed the homunculus. Nevertheless, because of the nature of embodiment, >> we still remain, to some extent, prisoners of description, only somewhat >> better off than the occupants of Plato’s cave.” >> -- Gerald Maurice Edelman and Giulio Tononi in "A Universe of >> Consciousness" (2000) >> >> >> >> >> When do you expect part 2 will be out? >> >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> -- > 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/911a06ce-28a5-40ed-9282-a7b14b92220fn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/911a06ce-28a5-40ed-9282-a7b14b92220fn%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/CA%2BBCJUiHwqWPipioQKpqVjh6cNuS-7vwz8XZDQfp4H5Bqw-r3A%40mail.gmail.com.
