Re: Would math make God obsolete ?
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:30, Brian Tenneson wrote: Some basic.questions. When you say PA, do you mean the set of all theorems entailed by the axioms of Peano arithmetic? Yes. In some context it means only the axioms, but often I use the same expression to denote the axioms and its logical consequences (theorems). Does this include the true (relative to PA of course) wffs that are not provable from PA alone? No. How can it be that PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency because it is inconsistent? PA+con(I) is inconsistent, because it can prove its own consistency (in one line), and that makes it inconsistent by the second incompleteness theorem (no consistent Löbian theory can prove its own consistency). Then, being inconsistent, it can prove its consistency, like it can prove any proposition. Do you mean that it is consistent relative to itself but inconsistent in the metalanguage? No, it is totally inconsistent. It proves f by its own axioms and the modus ponens rule. Or else how can we have it be both consistent and inconsistent? No. That would made us inconsistent. This is probably way off the subject (hope that's ok with you): isn't all mathematical truth relative to the formal system one is operating in? Why? I doubt this for some theories, like those who specify logically a Turing universal system. In all case a machine will stop or not stop, independently of the description and language used to describe the system. But I can imagine that you are partially right for richer theories. all mathematical truth is relative to the formal system one is operating in is relative to the formal system I call rational discourse in which mathematical discourse and machine-level discourse are sub-systems. Hmm Above arithmetic, I can make some sense on this. But to just define formal system, I need some absolute part, and I use the (second order) distinction between finite and infinite to do this, at the metat-level. Bruno On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:12, Brian Tenneson wrote: Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers. A Lôbian machine like ZF can do that already. I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of Godel's incompleteness theorems was proved by a computer. Boyer and Moore, yes, but that is not conceptuallydifferent than ZF, except that the Boyer-Moore machine uses more efficient sort of AI path. Gödel discovered that PM already proves his own incompleteness theorem. All Lôbian machine proves their own Gödel's theorem. They all prove If I am consistent, then I can't prove my consistency. The question I raised initially was this: will there ever be a machine or human who can correctly answer all questions with a mathematical theme that have answers? All? No, for any machine i in the phi_i. But that is less clear for evolving machines, whose evolution rule is not part of the program of the machine. Of course, at each moment of her life, she will be incomplete, but if her evolution is enough non computable, or using some special oracle, it might be that the machine will generate the infinitely many truth of arithmetic, but not in any provable way. I didn't think so in my original post but now I'm starting to wonder. It's the existence of undecidable statements that would probably lead to the machine or human not being able to do it in general. This reminds me of the halting problem. Those are related. Undecidable is always relative. Consistent(PA) is not provable by PA, but is provable in two lines in the theory PA +con(PA). Of course PA+con(PA) cannot prove con(PA+con(PA)). What about PA+con(I), with I = PA+con(I). It exists as we can eliminate the occurence of I by using the Dx = xx method. Well, in this case PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency, but only because it is actually inconsistent. The good news is we will never run out of mathematical territory to think about. Yes indeed, even if we confine ourselves on elementary (first order) arithmetic. There is an infinity of surprises there. Bruno On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and so are a smaller set than the reals. I'd suppose that if people can figure that out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well- designed computer brain could, too. -Gabe On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tenneson wrote: There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or other
Re: Would math make God obsolete ?
On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true statements lacking proof. Yes. There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or falsehood of something; Not establishing the truth, but establishing the theoremhood. At the metalevel, if the theiry is formalized in first order logic, you will have that the proved proposition will be satisfied in all models of the theory, but this cannot, in general, be shown *in* the theory, unless the theory is Löbian (but that is not easy to prove---I don't use that). if Goldbach's Conjecture is untrue then there is a FINITE even number that is NOT the sum of 2 primes. Yes. The negation of Goldbach is Sigma_1. Goldbach is Pi_1. Like Riemann Hypothesis. But Syracuse conjecture is above Pi_1. You cannot decide it, nor his negation, by a simple mechanical procedure. It would only take a finite number of lines to list all the prime numbers smaller than that even number and show that no two of them equal that even number, and that would be a proof that Goldbach's Conjecture is wrong. The real problem would come if Goldbach's Conjecture is true (so we'll never find two primes to show it's wrong) but can not be proven to be true (so we will never find a finite proof to show its correct). OK. Bruno John K Clark not just impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational processing. We'll never have a computer, then, that will work as a mathematically-omniscient device. By that I mean a computer such that every question that has a mathematically-oriented theme having an answer truthfully can be answered by such a device. Calculators demonstrate the concept but are clearly not mathematically-omniscient: you ask the calculator what is 2+2 and press a button and presto you get an answer. What I'm talking about would be questions like is the set of rational numbers equal in size to the set of real numbers, and get the correct answer. So we will never have such a computer no matter what its capacities are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain. Unfortunately, that means that even for humans, we will never know everything about math. Unless something weird would happen and we suddenly had infinite capacities; that might change the conclusions. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:56, meekerdb wrote: On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote: On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have provided the definition. Should I repeat? God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be responsible for my or our existence. Sounds like physics to me. If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time trying to find a TOE. Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend. Bruno's fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is fundamental but don't define it. Of course they might say, It's whatever we find to be fundamental...and we're calling it doG. Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's using it, but generally I'd take it to be something like beyond our understanding, hence my (tongue in cheek) comment. I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if physicist decided that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that they should just shut up and calculate from now on. Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem. If you calculate stuff accurately and predict stuff that surprising, people will think you've explained it. By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just dismiss the hard problem. Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that physicalism is wrong. net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not only for consciousness, but also for the origin of matter. Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here. That's the main point. I'm afraid so. Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it has explained gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species and lots of other stuff. But what it has done is show their relations and made accurate predictions AND *eliminated* the things people asked to be explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed the planets around. He was tormented by that problem. We have progressed of course, notably through QM and SR. Darwin didn't explain how animals adapted. But Mendel, Morgan, and then Watson and Crick, Jacob and Monod, and QM, completed the picture. We have progressed. Maxwell didn't explain the luminiferous ether. Just like we can't explain to Edgar how gravity gets out of a black hole. Science advances a lot by eliminativism. Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE eliminate the terms of the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or the N rays, etc. To eliminate persons and consciousness is different: that is a deny of key data. Beside being humanly morally dubious, it is the contrary of science. To eliminate the mind, can be a useful methodological simplification: we don't need consciousness to send a man on the moon, or to study the ring of Saturn. But to solve the mind-bod problem, and keep the comp theory in the cognitive science, we have to eliminate primitive matter, not consciousness (that's my point). We have to eliminate what cannot be used, not the data in need of explanations. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote: On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God. No. That Einstein does not believe in a personal god does not entail that he does believe in an impersonal god. Of course. But Einstein has heavily insisted all his life that he does believe in the good Lord. The quote given by John Clark comes from Einstein insisting that he does not believe in a personal God, that he made when people misused his assertion of his belief in God. (Einstein is of course a bit sloppy when describing his non personal god as a good Lord, but that's just a poetical means, like Plotinus calling the ONE father: it was just a way to attract Christians to Neoplatonism). That's a pretty sloppy inference for a logician, and you do it twice more. Read Jammer's book if you have any doubt that Einstein was not a believer in God (yet not in a personal or institutionalized God). Einstein will reassessed that belief all his life. But he will also condemn all religious institutions, all his life. Unlike Gödel, Einstein will not be interested in digging on this with the scientfic method, but thanks to Gödel, Einstein will eventually be open to the possibility that physics might not be the fundamental science, and that math could be. This is something that I have discovered recently. Einstein did understood a little bit what Gödel tried to explain to him, after all. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote: I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes floating around the web. They were real, but taken out of the context. But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of confessional religion. Like Gödel. Bruno On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that book is really informative about Einstein's religion. Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself had to say about God: it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. And: I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility And: The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. And: A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. And: I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.” Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was sometimes guilty of the same sin that members of this list habitually commit, falling in love not with the concept but with the English word God when all Einstein meant is awe at the structure of the world. John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks, John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous ignorance and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship that is epidemic on the everything list. John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with elan vital. Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws of carbon chemistry, and future computers will almost certainly contain carbon nanotubes and 2D carbon Graphene sheets. And I have no idea what elan vital is and those who like the term have even less idea than I do, but whatever it is if meat can have it I see no reason why a computer can't have it too. So even by your definition a computer could be alive. To be sure there was no misunderstanding, I do not seriously subscribe to that definition of life. Rather, I was using your own phrasing to show how it can be ridiculous it is to hold the meanings of words cannot change and must remain absolutely static. For we find that the meanings of many words change and evolve along with our understanding of the world. But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God? I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new. But that's a false analogy. Life was something we could point to, so it makes sense to say we discover it does or doesn't have some attribute. But God, since we stopped looking on Olympus, has just been defined by some set of attributes: Creator of the universe. Definer of morality. Your ultimate value. Love. Omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The necessary being. So it makes no sense to ask whether god has an attribute. The attributes are so varied and inconsistent that the word has become meaningless. It's then just a muddle to say, I'm going back to the really real original meaning. The original meaning was one of many superhuman, immortal beings. To pick Plotinus'es meaning, or Kronecker's, is no different than just making up another set of attributes and saying they define god. The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists? To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying Now we have the answer to the fundamental question, which is just a crackpot kind of statement. Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution definition. Atheists are the best ally of the religious fundamentalists. Both prevents the rise of the scientific attitude in the field. Both promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and both promote the absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is* pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that book is really informative about Einstein's religion. Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself had to say about God: it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God. After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one cannot deduce that he thought you can believe in a non- personal God (or god, if you prefer). That is right. But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does not believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein, out of the context. Einstein said also that he believes in God. (I would try to formalise this, something like ~p - q =/= p - ~q but my expertise in meta-self-doubt assures me I'd probably mess it up.) ~p - q is indeed not equivalent with p - ~q. This means that ((~p - q) - (p - ~q)) is not a law. But that does not mean that its negation is a law. ~((~p - q) - (p - ~q)) is not a law either. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:52, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist, physicalist) theology for granted. I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field. Bruno is using Aristotle to mean materialist, since Aristotle was apparently the person who started physics on the materialism route. So taking Aristotle for granted just means taking materialism for granted. If you think Aristotle was a bad physicist, then perhaps you shouldn't do that (assuming you do). That's why I said Aristotle theology. It is fun that Clark insists so much that Aristotle was a bad physicists, but insist so much (even if implicitly) that we took his THEOLOGY for granted. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote: I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes floating around the web. They were real, but taken out of the context. But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of confessional religion. Like Gödel. Didn't Godel update the ontological argument for the existence of God ? I suppose that doesn't say anything about what God is (guy with a long beard, or chthulhu, or white light...) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution definition. Atheists are the best ally of the religious fundamentalists. Both prevents the rise of the scientific attitude in the field. Both promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and both promote the absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is* pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'--cannot bear the music of the spheres -- Albert Einstein -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:38, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God? I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new. Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of a few similar examples. I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral term for the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe. (Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?) That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being or beyond being entity. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one cannot deduce that he thought you *can *believe in a non-personal God (or god, if you prefer). That is right. But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does not believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein, out of the context. Einstein said also that he believes in God. Sorry, I just couldn't resist teasing a bit. (Also, I hadn't seen Brent's comment when I wrote that.) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote: On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God? I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new. Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite, transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun? Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable. If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's just call it goar. And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar. I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation: physics-biology-intelligence-consciousness-observation-language- mathematics-physics-... We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence of many theories, including most of the everything type theories popular on this list. Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of a few similar examples. Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as the Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations (theories) of that which is responsible for our existance. Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be explained persists. I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral term for the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe. Any suggestions? (Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?) I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I think god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any particular religion. But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Oops send a message by mistake, sorry. Comment below. On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote: On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God? I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new. Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite, transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun? Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable. If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's just call it goar. And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar. I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation: physics-biology-intelligence-consciousness-observation-language- mathematics-physics-... That is poetry. But even such a circle is easy to explain in arithmetic, which we have to assume already for defining those terms. So why not adopt the simplest explanation, if only to discover its limit one day. We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence of many theories, including most of the everything type theories popular on this list. Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of a few similar examples. Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as the Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations (theories) of that which is responsible for our existance. Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be explained persists. I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral term for the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe. Any suggestions? (Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?) I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I think god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any particular religion. But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that. Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique reality. That is the motor of the fundamental inquiry. It has given the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned to politics. 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
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:13, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote: I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes floating around the web. They were real, but taken out of the context. But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of confessional religion. Like Gödel. Didn't Godel update the ontological argument for the existence of God ? I suppose that doesn't say anything about what God is (guy with a long beard, or chthulhu, or white light...) Gödel has formalized St-Anselmus notion of God in ... The Leinizian modal logic. Then he proved his existence. He did this just to illustrate that rigor can exist in Theology. I am not sure he really believed in St-Anselmus notion of God, and I doubt he really took Leibniz modal logic as the only correct metaphysical account of the alethic (Leibnizian) modal logic. Open problem: does the inner god of the machine believes in St- Anselmus-Gödel God? (= can we translate the proof of God existence into S4Grz?). More on Leibniz modal logic soon. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution definition. Atheists are the best ally of the religious fundamentalists. Both prevents the rise of the scientific attitude in the field. Both promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and both promote the absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is* pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'--cannot bear the music of the spheres -- Albert Einstein Ah! Good to compensate Clark's partial quoting. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God? I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new. Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite, transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun? Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable. Those are the properties of the god of computationalism: arithmetical truth If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's just call it goar. And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar. There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an explaination of. I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation: physics-biology-intelligence-consciousness-observation-language-mathematics-physics-... That is interesting, but it's not a complete cycle, for the physics or math conceived of by intelligence is not necessarily the true or complete math or physics. We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence of many theories, including most of the everything type theories popular on this list. Hence we *could *say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of a few similar examples. Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as the Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations (theories) of that which is responsible for our existance. Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be explained persists. I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral term for the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe. Any suggestions? (Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?) I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I think god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any particular religion. But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that. Not generally. That is the case only in some specific religions. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options,
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:19, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one cannot deduce that he thought you can believe in a non- personal God (or god, if you prefer). That is right. But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does not believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein, out of the context. Einstein said also that he believes in God. Sorry, I just couldn't resist teasing a bit. (Also, I hadn't seen Brent's comment when I wrote that.) No problem with teasing, but careful in applying logic. The misuse of logic has probably killed more people on this planet than anything else. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be conscious? NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.* *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. Puppets can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be conscious. Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. To compare a brain with a machine can make sense. To compare a brain with a picture cannot. It depends what the picture is doing. If you have a collection of detailed pictures of brains, and you organize them so that they are shown in different sequences according to some computation, isn't that a simulation of a brain? It is not. It is a description of a computation, not a computation. The computation is in the logical relation, which includes the counterfactuals. Now, we do describe computation by some description, and so this confusion is frequent. But it is the same type of confusion between ciphers and numbers. Ciphers and sequence of ciphers are not numbers. It is the cionfusion between 345 and 345. In either case, consciousness makes no more sense as part of a brain or a machine than a picture. Right. We agree on that. But a brain can locally manifest a person. A picture cannot. You can't implement it in a computer, in the sense of implementing a program, which then can manifest a person. Machines are like 4D pictures. One picture or form leads to another and another, and if there were some interpreter they could infer a logic to those transitions, but there is nothing in the machine which would itself lead from unconsciousness to awareness. No, but the machine can still enact it. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Tell me what you believe so we can be clear: My understanding is that you believe that if the parts of the Chinese Room don't understand Chinese, then the Chinese Room can't understand Chinese. Have I got this wrong? The fact that the Chinese Room can't understand Chinese is not related to its parts, but to the category error of the root assumption that forms and functions can understand things. I see forms and functions as one of the effects of experience, not as a cause of them. But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be conscious? NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.* I agree. Cool. *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. Puppets can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be conscious. You do the Searle error. The fact that the room/body form is not conscious does not entail that the narrative is fictional. If the room simulates the person at its right level, it can manifest the real abstract person related to the narrative. That makes perfect sense to me, but it makes more sense that it is a mistake. It assumes the information-theoretic ground of being in which simulation is possible. That is arithmetic. yes we assume things like 0+1=1, etc. I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. Comp explains the role of self-consciousness. It is a relative accelerator. Non self-consciousness is harder to explain. The understanding of 0+1=1 certainly requires consciousness and attention, but the fact that it is the case that 0+1=1 does not a priori. My understanding is that this is not only precisely the opposite of the whole truth, which is that all awareness is grounded in the unprecedented, unrepeatable, and unique, If you know the truth; there is nothing we can do for you. I'm not asking for anything to be done for me. but that the inverted assumption of comp is actually incapable of detecting its own error. The point is that it can, but not by introspection. Just by comparing the comp physics and the inferred physics. Physics is measurement though. Awareness can't be located that way. This blindness is what is being reflected in its projections of first person machine denial of mechanism. ? To be clear, 1p is not denied. It plays indeed the key role in the whole UDA. Then the math recover it Through the arithmetical translation of Theaetetus idea, and this is made possible by machine's incompleteness. That version of 1p is a behaviorist silhouette though. That would be the case if it was formally describable. But it can't. A behaviorist has no means to see the difference between Bp and Bp p. They proves exactly the same propositions of arithmetic, and for that reason, have the same 3p behavior. But the math shows that they obey quite different self-referential logic. It is a 1p which has no function but to pad the 3p math so that the unknown can be taken into account. It does not specify the nature of the unknown or link it to qualitative awareness. It does. But you might need to follow the explanation I am given to Liz. There is no level of simulation, because simulation itself is a theory which mistakes local sensory approximation for universal interchangeability. Well, that is the comp bet. You just assert non)comp here, without an argument. There can't be an argument, because the argument has to begin with sophistry. We can only argue for comp if we allow ourselves to doubt what cannot really be doubted. But I don't argue for comp. I just invalidate arguments against comp. That is NOT arguing for comp. And also, I agree we should not doubt what cannot be doubted. But I know only consciousness to be undoubtable. All the rest, in fact all public beliefs can be doubted. It makes the mistake of imposing the specially blunted aesthetics of functionalism onto the aesthetic totality. That's no better than Jacques Arsac argument: i am catholic, so i can't believe that a machine will ever think. It's the argument that makes the most sense, given the assumption that sense is primordial and
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the three sentences above, so would appreciate a blow by blow explanation if that's OK). By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious appreciation of symbolic relations. In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the territory. Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the subject... If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within mathematics. False. We know now that arithmetic is full of mathematicians. That is the essence of Gödel discovery (not just in the light of computationalism). This is brought from Gödel understanding that arithmetic already do meta-arithmetic. More on this later, probably. They are all figures of experience which are valid because of aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional type of 'consciousness' would be redundant. That's a good point. Yes. That is the mind-body problem (that some physicalist call hard problem of consciousness, but I prefer the more neutral standard expression in philosophy of mind). Bruno At a slight tangent, it seems possible that the universe has some of these concepts built in (in some sense). This isn't an objection to what you're saying, but maybe it should be borne in mind, in case these are somehow indicative of what can be considered primitive... Equivalence - all electrons (say) appear to be identical. Counting - a BEC (for example) does a sort of simple arithmetic, in that the universe keeps track of the number of objects involved even when they aren't even in theory distinguishable. Symmetry - as I'm sure you know there all lots of examples of this in physics. All the conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc) can be expressed in terms of symmetries. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Kevin Knuth's emergent spacetime
On 28 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Folks, Check out this paper by Kevin Knuth. In it he shows how one can obtain space-time (and its Lorentz symmetry in the limit) from interactions between observers and some basic relational algebra. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Knuth_fqxi13knuthessayfinal.pdf This is, IMHO, a nice alternative to the block universe concept. It is quite good stuff, but it does not address the question of the origin and nature of Matter (the hard problem of matter), nor the mind- body problem (still less the comp mind-body problem: he still uses the basic (and inconsistent) mind-brain association implicitly). Nor do I see any threat to the block reality idea. Bruno -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A humble suggestion to the group
Hi Jason, The wiki doesn't seem to be working :( I get a 404... Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Russell, Yes, I also tried to salvage what was available from the web archive, but unfortunate it looks like the archiver never found the wiki to begin with so nothing was ever archived. I won't let that happen this time, I will submit the new wiki address such that it gets properly archived should the worst happen. I don't know what happened with my web-hosting provider, it looks like the database it was referencing simply disappeared.. P.S., I've created a provisonal Talk page for myself, in case others wanted some kind of template to base your own on: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=User:Jresch Jason On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have the time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other people's efforts. We must make sure we have backups this time! PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the wiki back in 21st of July last year - alas it got an Error 403 :( https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx Cheers On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 04:13:40PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote: All, Unfortunately it seems the database for previous wiki page was somehow deleted, but I have created a fresh version at: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Main_Page I've also created a number of stub pages, which you can see at: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Special:AllPages If you would like to help make the wiki more complete, feel free to write one of the wanted pages: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages Or flesh out any of the existing pages with more details, references, links, etc. I also think it would be valuable to register and place a description of some of your background and ideas you subscribe to on your own talk page. We've fallen out of the habit of using Wei Dai's suggested Joining Posthttp://www.weidai.com/everything.html, but the wiki might be a good place to registry your beliefs and background, as well as update it as your opinions page. Jason On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 January 2014 12:49, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like I need to update the database connection information: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/ If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as useful as any page would be Bio pages of members, which state where people fall on a number of questions, and we can trend that overtime to see if anyone's mind's change. That would be interesting, if you do have the time. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Liz, No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the difference. My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven Hubble expansion of space around galaxies. The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion. It seems to be as if moving masses left their gravitational field behind them as they entered BHs. There is no known case in which moving masses leave their gravitational fields behind them. That seems to me to contradict GR. Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still causes gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he believes. Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole? Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a pretty crazy idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space warping behind in any other circumstances.* I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would leave behind a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone somewhere else. Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other all the time. Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original galactic mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can go anywhere it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter can... -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be conscious? NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.* *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. Puppets can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be conscious. Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. To compare a brain with a machine can make sense. To compare a brain with a picture cannot. It depends what the picture is doing. If you have a collection of detailed pictures of brains, and you organize them so that they are shown in different sequences according to some computation, isn't that a simulation of a brain? It is not. It is a description of a computation, not a computation. The computation is in the logical relation, which includes the counterfactuals. But the counterfactuals are theoretical rather than realistic. The computation is like an Escher drawing, it can do things that would be impossible for a real brain and cannot do or be real in ways that a brain must necessarily be. A picture is just the next step in abstraction toward the sub-theoretical, but it is actually one step more concrete in aesthetic realism. A real picture of a triangle is closer to consciousness than a computation for the Mandelbot Set, which is only a theory until it is presented graphically to a visual participant. Now, we do describe computation by some description, and so this confusion is frequent. But it is the same type of confusion between ciphers and numbers. Ciphers and sequence of ciphers are not numbers. It is the cionfusion between 345 and 345. Both 345 and 345 are still pictures. They can only be made meaningful when they are associated by a sensory experience in which some aesthetic content or expectation can be labelled with a string or value. In either case, consciousness makes no more sense as part of a brain or a machine than a picture. Right. We agree on that. But a brain can locally manifest a person. I don't think it can. A tip cannot locally manifest an iceberg. A cookie cutter cannot manifest a cookie. A picture cannot. You can't implement it in a computer, in the sense of implementing a program, which then can manifest a person. Right, because nothing can manifest a person except the complete history of experiences of Homo sapiens. Machines are like 4D pictures. One picture or form leads to another and another, and if there were some interpreter they could infer a logic to those transitions, but there is nothing in the machine which would itself lead from unconsciousness to awareness. No, but the machine can still enact it. What the machine enacts is an impersonal performance of personhood, not a person. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:52:47 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the three sentences above, so would appreciate a blow by blow explanation if that's OK). By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious appreciation of symbolic relations. In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the territory. Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the subject... If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within mathematics. They are all figures of experience which are valid because of aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional type of 'consciousness' would be redundant. That's a good point. At a slight tangent, it seems possible that the universe has some of these concepts built in (in some sense). This isn't an objection to what you're saying, but maybe it should be borne in mind, in case these are somehow indicative of what can be considered primitive... Yes exactly. I would say that *our kind of view* of the totality includes the appearance of those concepts being built in to the universe. Locally that is true, just as locally it seems to me that the meaning of these letters and words as English language is now, as an adult, part of the scenery. I think that because mathematical relations are almost completely primitive, they appear almost as a shadow of what is absolutely primitive, which is sense itself. Being that it is more primitive than space or time (which, as Bruno suggests, are mathematically derived), math is eternal and instantaneous relative to our awareness. Our local frame of reference is nested within schemas which are both larger and smaller: astrophysics-QMgeology-chemistryevolution-microbiologyzoology-physiologyanthropology-neurology. The position of our frame of reference flattens the more distant frames as they occur on scales which are too remote, too fast and too slow, for us to relate to as consciousness. Equivalence - all electrons (say) appear to be identical. The more remote the frame of reference (for us, Astrophysics and QM are the most remote), the more generic and mechanical appearances tend to be. The electron itself may not even be 'real' so much as perceptual 'fill-in' from those remote levels. There may not be individual electrons at all, but more of a stereotype of a whole category of low level experiences which are, ontologically, none of our business. Counting - a BEC (for example) does a sort of simple arithmetic, in that the universe keeps track of the number of objects involved even when they aren't even in theory distinguishable. Sure, the universe keeps track of everything. It is only our nested insensitivity which obscures almost everything from us. I would not say that the BEC *does* arithmetic, so much as the fidelity of arithmetic sense is preserved (as one of many layers of sense that is preserved, at or beneath our measurement). Symmetry - as I'm sure you know there all lots of examples of this in physics. All the conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc) can be expressed in terms of symmetries. Yes, symmetry is a key principle, but it is an aesthetic phenomenon already. We can define symmetry in specific terms, but the presence of symmetry requires some aesthetic description to be realized. There can be no theory of symmetry without the reality of spatiotemporal experiences. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the three sentences above, so would appreciate a blow by blow explanation if that's OK). By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious appreciation of symbolic relations. In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the territory. Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the subject... If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within mathematics. False. We know now that arithmetic is full of mathematicians. That is the essence of Gödel discovery (not just in the light of computationalism). This is brought from Gödel understanding that arithmetic already do meta-arithmetic. More on this later, probably. From what I have read, I suspect that Gödel would disagree. I do not think that incompleteness implicates consciousness within arithmetic, and in fact suggests the opposite - that arithmetic is not complete enough to contain consciousness. To say that arithmetic is full of mathematicians sounds unfalsifiable and arbitrary to me. At the very least it is a discovery which is yours and not a popular understanding within mathematics. How would you tell the difference between arithmetic being full of mathematicians and arithmetic being full of impersonal reflections of the mathematician? They are all figures of experience which are valid because of aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional type of 'consciousness' would be redundant. That's a good point. Yes. That is the mind-body problem (that some physicalist call hard problem of consciousness, but I prefer the more neutral standard expression in philosophy of mind). If we are talking about math though, then we don't need the body. It is more like the mind-math problem. If you have the math, why do you need an aesthetic mind? Craig Bruno At a slight tangent, it seems possible that the universe has some of these concepts built in (in some sense). This isn't an objection to what you're saying, but maybe it should be borne in mind, in case these are somehow indicative of what can be considered primitive... Equivalence - all electrons (say) appear to be identical. Counting - a BEC (for example) does a sort of simple arithmetic, in that the universe keeps track of the number of objects involved even when they aren't even in theory distinguishable. Symmetry - as I'm sure you know there all lots of examples of this in physics. All the conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc) can be expressed in terms of symmetries. -- 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. If Barack Obama revealed that he was a machine, would that change your view of whether machines could be conscious? The Chinese Room is not important. You are missing the whole point. Consciousness is beyond reason and cannot be discovered through evidence or argument, but sensory experience alone. So the Chinese Room is conscious not through evidence or argument, but through sensory experience alone. The claim is that the consciousness of the room stands in relation to the physical room as the consciousness of a person stands in relation to the physical person. There is no 'physical person', there is a public facing body. A person is not a body. On one level of an animal's body there are organs which cannot survive independently of the body as a whole, but on another level all of those organs are composed of living cells which have more autonomy. Understanding this theme of coexisting but contrasting levels of description suggests that a room need not be comparable to the body of a living organism. Since the room is not something which naturally evolves of its own motives and sense, we need not assume that the level at which it appears to us as a room or machine is in fact the relevant level of description when considering its autonomy and coherence. In my view, the machine expresses only the lowest levels of immediate thermodynamic sensitivity according to the substance which is actually reacting, and the most distant levels of theoretical design, but with nothing in between. We do not have to pretend that there is no way to guess whether a doll or a cadaver might be conscious. With an adequate model of qualitative nesting and its relation to quantitative scale, we can be freed from sophism and pathetic fallacy. An observer might say that the Chinese Room or the AI in Her or Barack Obama naturally evolves of its own motives and sense after the point of creation. It could not become John Wayne physically, and it could not become John Wayne mentally if the actual matter in John Wayne is required to reproduce John Wayne's mind, but you have not proved that the latter is the case. It has nothing to do with matter. There can only ever be one John Wayne. A person is like a composite snapshot of a unique human lifetime, and the nesting of that lifetime within a unique cultural zeitgeist. It's all made of the expression of experience through time. The matter is just the story told to us by the experiences of eyeballs and fingertips, microscopes, etc. What if it were revealed that John Wayne's body while he was asleep on the night of his 40th birthday was annihilated and replaced by a copy? Would you still say there can only be one John Wayne? Why couldn't we make a John Wayne Mk3 long after his death, who would stand in relation to John Wayne Mk2 as John Wayne Mk2 stood in relation to John Wayne Mk1? That's what Searle claims, which is why he makes the Room pass a Turing test in Chinese and then purports to prove (invalidly, according to what you've said) that despite passing the test it isn't conscious. The question of whether or not a Turing test is possible is beyond the scope of the the Chinese Room. The Room assumes, for the sake of argument, that Computationalist assumptions are true, and that a Turing type test would be useful, and that anything which could pass such a test would have to be conscious. Searle rightly identifies the futility of looking for outward appearances to reveal the quality of interior awareness. He successfully demonstrates that blind syntactic approaches to producing symbols of consciousness could indeed match any blind semantic approach of expecting consciousness. And he purports to do that by showing that despite external appearances the Chinese Room cannot be conscious because the components are not conscious, which you agree is not a valid argument. My hypotheses go further into the ontology of awareness, so that we are not limited to the blindness of measurable communication in our empathy, and that our senses extend beyond their own accounts of each other. Our intuitive capacities can be more fallible than empirical views can measure, but they can also be more veridical than information based methods can ever dream of. Intuition, serendipity, and imagination are required to generate the perpetual denationalization of creators ahead of the created. This doesn't mean that some people cannot be fooled all of the time or that all of the
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't give a sh*t how to get there... Science that advances by eliminativism comes with a price and some side-effects. Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it. We eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress. Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: Wow, look at all this amazing customized digital technology we have, waving around an iphone, that's because where they build these things, people are so miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from jumping off the effin roofs... There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area. Given the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere. Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate. *At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed suicides this academic year, including two on successive days last month. Last week, Cornell installed chain-link fencing along many of the bridges that cross the gorges on campus, serving both as deterrent and a physical reminder.* *According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of participating undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in four-year colleges said they had seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year--and nearly half of each group did not tell anyone.*** Agreed and you make my point. The possible maturing from a critical naiveté, in terms of implications of beliefs, their negation, naturalization through sustaining self-legitimizing histories as falsely true (e.g. through creation and unquestioning beliefs in institutional function, which includes exploiting factory floors, forcing obedience in conventions through education systems, reliance on fossil fuels, overemphasis on weapons manufacture etc.), that result in all our progress, can't keep up with the effects of an apparent efficacy, through lucky metaphors/isomorphisms perhaps, of our prohibition style separation of theology and science. The Pharaoh is now for example say: US law. Such monsters of ornate rules and codes benefit whom? Right, it's ideal for PR exploiting Pharaohs that can afford the army of slave lawyers to look after their pyramids on Nantucket or wherever. I don't think we've ended imperialistic and massive slave-like treatment of people, based on dominance theologies. We've just given them different labels, and since the law is atheistic (just swear on the Bible for a moment), its great to mask that we haven't changed in this regard much. We're also more vulnerable to PR manipulation, negating importance of theology in science. Believing all kinds of crap because of a few idiots being handed the mike or air time. See climate change. so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a sh*t. Sure, it's comedy. But it's not trivial in proclaiming civilization has not made the progress promised by Science, liberalized from theology. I guess people think less about such problems as good and evil, fundamental science, philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially richer for it, and technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive about the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use technology for savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to envision more appropriate beliefs in such complex contexts. Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne bit, fundamentally laying aside what with belief implication) with what's left, our default opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no surprise why many argue this way: it's simpler and clearer. Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense. Children with access to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto this. PGC The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the Spartans and Alexander the Great as well as Plato. Nobody here is making the claim that the Greeks were saints or have answers for us. But they did articulate the problem with the problem and question of knowledge's limits. Plato, Plotinus to Gödel and co. have even made some progress. PGC Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Modal Logic (Part 1: Leibniz)
On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:57, LizR wrote: On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote: On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that p is true in at least one world. You need just use a conditional (if). The word asked was if. OK? OK. I think I see. p becomes if p is true rather than p is true Yes. Rereading a previews post I ask myself if this is well understood. I have tended to work on the basis that 'p' means 'p is true' That is correct. - to make it easier to get my head around what an expression like []p - p means. ? p - q means: if p is true then q is true. (or means, equivalently 'p is false or q is true') In fact p - q is a sort of negation of p. It means p if false (unless q is true). OK, I think I misunderstood something you said which made me think I'd previously misunderstood ... but actually I hadn't. I got it right the first time. Yes. I talk too much :) Consider all typo and incorrect statements of me as exercises! (OK, it is a bit easy for me to say this, but expect errors. It is frequent and normal). I realise it could also mean if p is false in all worlds, that implies it is false in this one Here you talk like if p - q implies ~p - ~q. But p - q is equivalent with ~q - ~p, not with ~p - ~q Socrates is human - Socrates is mortal does not imply Socrates is not human - Socrates is not mortal. Socrates could be my dog, for example. But Socrates is human - Socrates is mortal does imply Socrates is not mortal - Socrates is not human Keep in mind that p - q is ~p V q. Then (if you see that ~~p = p, and that p V q = q V p). ~p - ~q = ~~p v ~q = p V ~q = ~q V p = q - p. (not p - q). OK? Yes. OK. You said that we cannot infer anything from Alicia song as we don't know if his theory/song is true. But the whole point of logic is in the art of deriving and reasoning without ever knowing if a premise is true or not. Indeed, we even want to reason independetly of any interpretation (of the atoical propositions). Yes, I do appreciate that is the point. I was a bit thrown by the word usage with Alicia, if A is singing...everybody loves my baby...can we deduce... I mean, I often sing all sorts of things that I don't intend to be self-referential (e.g. I am the Walrus) so I felt the need to add a little caveat. OK. Let me try to be clear. From the truth of Everybody loves my baby my baby loves nobody but me you have deduced correctly the proposition everybody loves me. (with me = Alicia, and, strangely enough, = the baby). From the truth of Alicia song Everybody loves my baby my baby loves nobody , we can only deduce that everybody loves Alicia or Alicia is not correct. In that last case either someone does not love the baby, or the baby does not love only her, maybe the baby loves someone else, secretly. OK. OK. That error is done by those who believe that I defend the truth of comp, which I never do. In fact we never know if a theory is true (cf Popper). That is why we do theories. We can prove A - B, without having any clues if A is false (in which case A - B is trivial), or A is true. I will come back on this. It is crucially important. I agree. I think psychologically it's hard to derive the results from a theory mechanically, without at least having some idea that it could be true. But obviously one can, as with Alicia. You are right. Most of the time, mathematicians are aware of what they want to prove. They work topdown, using their intuition and familiarity with the subject. To be sure, very often too, they will prove a different theorem than the one they were thinking about. In some case they can even prove the contrary, more or less like Gödel for his 1931 result. He thought he could prove the consistency of the Hilbert program, but the math reality kicked back. Ooh, really?! Well that really IS maths kicking back big time. I must remember that as an example of how maths really can kick back unexpectedly. Another famous example is the proof of the irrationality of sqrt(2). Although the fact that Pythagorus killed 100 cows, and one disciple (!) belongs plausibly to a legend, it is still a kicking back result, showing that not all length on the plane are commensurable. of course there are many others. Nevertheless, the level of rigor in math today is such that in the paper, you will have to present the proof in a way showing that anyone could extract a formal proof of it, whose validity can be checked mechanically in either directly in predicate first order calculus, or in a theory which admits a known description in first order predicate calculus, like ZF, category theory. All physical theories admits such description (like classical physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology,
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't give a sh*t how to get there... Science that advances by eliminativism comes with a price and some side-effects. Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it. We eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress. Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: Wow, look at all this amazing customized digital technology we have, waving around an iphone, that's because where they build these things, people are so miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from jumping off the effin roofs... There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area. Given the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere. Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate. At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed suicides this academic year, including two on successive days last month. Last week, Cornell installed chain-link fencing along many of the bridges that cross the gorges on campus, serving both as deterrent and a physical reminder. According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of participating undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in four-year colleges said they had seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year--and nearly half of each group did not tell anyone. Agreed and you make my point. The possible maturing from a critical naiveté, in terms of implications of beliefs, their negation, naturalization through sustaining self-legitimizing histories as falsely true (e.g. through creation and unquestioning beliefs in institutional function, which includes exploiting factory floors, forcing obedience in conventions through education systems, reliance on fossil fuels, overemphasis on weapons manufacture etc.), that result in all our progress, can't keep up with the effects of an apparent efficacy, through lucky metaphors/isomorphisms perhaps, of our prohibition style separation of theology and science. The Pharaoh is now for example say: US law. Such monsters of ornate rules and codes benefit whom? Right, it's ideal for PR exploiting Pharaohs that can afford the army of slave lawyers to look after their pyramids on Nantucket or wherever. I don't think we've ended imperialistic and massive slave-like treatment of people, based on dominance theologies. We've just given them different labels, and since the law is atheistic (just swear on the Bible for a moment), its great to mask that we haven't changed in this regard much. We're also more vulnerable to PR manipulation, negating importance of theology in science. Believing all kinds of crap because of a few idiots being handed the mike or air time. See climate change. PGC: good stuff! so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a sh*t. Sure, it's comedy. But it's not trivial in proclaiming civilization has not made the progress promised by Science, liberalized from theology. I guess people think less about such problems as good and evil, fundamental science, philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially richer for it, and technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive about the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use technology for savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to envision more appropriate beliefs in such complex contexts. Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne bit, fundamentally laying aside what with belief implication) with what's left, our default opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no surprise why many argue this way: it's simpler and clearer. Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense. Children with access to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto this. PGC The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the Spartans and Alexander the Great as well as Plato. Nobody here is making the claim that the Greeks were saints or have answers for us. But they did articulate the problem with the problem and question of knowledge's limits. Plato, Plotinus to Gödel and co. have even made some progress. PGC Brent
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be conscious? NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.* *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. Puppets can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be conscious. Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. To compare a brain with a machine can make sense. To compare a brain with a picture cannot. It depends what the picture is doing. If you have a collection of detailed pictures of brains, and you organize them so that they are shown in different sequences according to some computation, isn't that a simulation of a brain? It is not. It is a description of a computation, not a computation. The computation is in the logical relation, which includes the counterfactuals. But the counterfactuals are theoretical rather than realistic. I will no more comment any statements using word like real, realistic, concrete, etc. The computation is like an Escher drawing, it can do things that would be impossible for a real brain and cannot do or be real in ways that a brain must necessarily be. A picture is just the next step in abstraction toward the sub-theoretical, but it is actually one step more concrete in aesthetic realism. A real picture of a triangle is closer to consciousness than a computation for the Mandelbot Set, which is only a theory until it is presented graphically to a visual participant. Now, we do describe computation by some description, and so this confusion is frequent. But it is the same type of confusion between ciphers and numbers. Ciphers and sequence of ciphers are not numbers. It is the cionfusion between 345 and 345. Both 345 and 345 are still pictures. ? I ask myself if you get the notion of number. They can only be made meaningful when they are associated by a sensory experience in which some aesthetic content or expectation can be labelled with a string or value. What can I say? That follows from your theory. But your theory does not even try to explain the sensory experience. You assume the difficulty which I think computer science explains partially, and in a testable way. The existence of your theory is not by itself a refutation of a different theory. In either case, consciousness makes no more sense as part of a brain or a machine than a picture. Right. We agree on that. But a brain can locally manifest a person. I don't think it can. So, if someone lost his body in some accident, but the rescuer saves the brain, and succeeded in connecting it to an artificial heart, and eventually an artificial body (but still with his natural brain). The guy behaves normally. He kept his job. But you tell me that he has become a zombie? A tip cannot locally manifest an iceberg. A cookie cutter cannot manifest a cookie. A picture cannot. You can't implement it in a computer, in the sense of implementing a program, which then can manifest a person. Right, because nothing can manifest a person except the complete history of experiences of Homo sapiens. You confirm that you are lowering the level, and in fact up to infinity. It looks like saying I am an infinite being. I have no local Gödel number that you can put on some hard disk. It is your right, but, well, I am not interested in that type of theory. It excludes too much possibilities, and is based on some illusion of superiority. The 1p of the machine also believes, even know, its relation with *infinity*, but the correct machine does not brag on this, and still less, derived any superiority feeling from this. (especially that comp explains in which sense the machine is right when saying that about herself (her 1-self). Machines are like 4D pictures. One picture or form leads to another and another, and if there were some interpreter they could infer a logic to those transitions, but there is nothing in the
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE eliminate the terms of the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or the N rays, etc. Just as an aside, N rays is now used to describe neutron radiography http://www.nray.ca/nray/res_XvsN.php I laugh every time I see an engineering specification that calls out N ray inspection. Engineers never heard of Blondlot. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists? To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying Now we have the answer to the fundamental question, which is just a crackpot kind of statement. That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you taken up mind reading, Bruno? If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter. What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the world. And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively, physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done. So you are factually wrong assuming matter is some blinding constraint on physics. The reason FPI is ignored by /*most*/ scientists is that /*most*/ scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere. Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable. To say I don't believe in God is quite clear to all those people who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are answered. When Mach said, I don't believe in atoms. did it imply he knew what was fundamental? For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to others. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being or beyond being entity. If I show it is empirically false that Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of god, will you stop using God and switch to goar? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that. Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique reality. That is the motor of the fundamental inquiry. It has given the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned to politics. But there was no rise of monotheism following Parmenides. It rose following the Jews, who insisted that only *their* great-man-in-the-sky was really real. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable. Those are the properties of the god of computationalism: arithmetical truth So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of comp? Well I guess that's one way to know what goar is - and a popular way at that. ... If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's just call it goar. And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar. There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an explaination of. But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent, infinite, etc... or even singular. If this is science and not religion we must find out what goar is and its attributes - not assume them at the start. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 28 Jan 2014, at 14:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote: On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the three sentences above, so would appreciate a blow by blow explanation if that's OK). By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious appreciation of symbolic relations. In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the territory. Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the subject... If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within mathematics. False. We know now that arithmetic is full of mathematicians. That is the essence of Gödel discovery (not just in the light of computationalism). This is brought from Gödel understanding that arithmetic already do meta-arithmetic. More on this later, probably. From what I have read, I suspect that Gödel would disagree. You are right, but I was talking in the comp theory. I should have said that if comp is true, then arithmetic is full of mathematicians. By the way, arithmetic is also full of non-machine entities, and some (most self-referentially correct one) are still Löbian and obeys the same theology. Infinity by itself does not help to escape the consequence of comp. I do not think that incompleteness implicates consciousness within arithmetic, Indeed. But the self-consciousness or self-awareness will start, not from incompleteness, but from the provable incompleteness. (Already mirrored by Gödel second incompleteness theorem, or by Löb theorem). Löbian machines are aware of their limitations. and in fact suggests the opposite - that arithmetic is not complete enough to contain consciousness. You misunderstand Gödel. Arithmetic is the reality for which machines, theories, and any finite beings, are only capable to scratch. To say that arithmetic is full of mathematicians sounds unfalsifiable and arbitrary to me. It is a direct consequence of comp, and of a theorem showing the representability of the partial recursive function in (Robinson already) arithmetic (RA). (with comp = Church's thesis + it exists a level n such ... yes doctor). If you bet in comp, it exists an infinity of computations going through you actual state S. And Löbian machines can prove that. The existence of all such computations are theorem in RA. At the very least it is a discovery which is yours and not a popular understanding within mathematics. Since how long can woman vote? It is the normal fear of the others. That kind of thing takes time. How would you tell the difference between arithmetic being full of mathematicians and arithmetic being full of impersonal reflections of the mathematician? No, no, it is full of mathematicians. With comp, Euler is there, and Ramanujan too. It is a triviality. Astonishing, but trivial (and only a tiny part of a difficult but interesting problem deriving physics from the statistics on those computations). I think it is a problem of your theory: it solves the problem. It is more interesting when a theory lead to a problem. Especially to attract the serious guy with competence, in this morbid and taboo field. Comp leads to reducing physics to a dreamy arithmetical complex structures. They are all figures of experience which are valid because of aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional type of 'consciousness' would be redundant. That's a good point. Yes. That is the mind-body problem (that some physicalist call hard problem of consciousness, but I prefer the more neutral standard expression in philosophy of mind). If we are talking about math though, then we don't need the body. It is more like the mind-math problem. If you have the math, why do you need an aesthetic mind? After Gödel we have
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven Hubble
expansion of space around galaxies.
The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion. It seems to
be as if moving masses left their gravitational field behind them as they entered BHs.
There is no known case in which moving masses leave their gravitational fields behind
them. That seems to me to contradict GR.
Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still causes
gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he believes.
All you would have had to do is look at the Wikipedia:
=
Deriving the Schwarzschild solution
The Schwarzschild solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_solution is one of
the simplest and most useful solutions of the Einstein field equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations (see general relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity). It describes spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime in the vicinity of a non-rotating massive
spherically-symmetric object. It is worthwhile deriving this metric in some detail; the
following is a reasonably rigorous derivation that is not always seen in the textbooks.
Working in a coordinate chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_chart with
coordinates \left(r, \theta, \phi, t \right) labelled 1 to 4 respectively, we begin with
the metric in its most general form (10 independent components, each of which is a smooth
function of 4 variables). The solution is assumed to be spherically symmetric, static and
vacuum. For the purposes of this article, these assumptions may be stated as follows (see
the relevant links for precise definitions):
(1) A spherically symmetric spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherically_symmetric_spacetime is one in which all metric
components are unchanged under any rotation-reversal \theta \rightarrow - \theta or \phi
\rightarrow - \phi.
(2) A static spacetime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime is one in which all
metric components are independent of the time coordinate t (so that \frac {\part g_{\mu
\nu}}{\part t}=0) and the geometry of the spacetime is unchanged under a time-reversal t
\rightarrow -t.
(3) A /*vacuum solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equation*/ is one
that satisfies the equation T_{ab}=0. From the Einstein field equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations (with zero cosmological constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant), this implies that R_{ab}=0 (after
contracting R_{ab}-\frac{R}{2} g_{ab}=0 and putting R = 0).
(4) Metric signature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_signature used here
is (-,+,+,+).
===
But apparently learning something is not on your agenda.
Brent
Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
outside the
event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing
can go
faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?
Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears
completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside
and
that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space
warping from
the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a
pretty crazy
idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space warping behind in
any
other circumstances.*
I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would
leave behind
a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone somewhere else.
Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that
caused it.
At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is
why it's
called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other all
the time.
Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original
galactic
mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can go
anywhere
it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter can...
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:31:07 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be conscious? NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.* *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. Puppets can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be conscious. Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. To compare a brain with a machine can make sense. To compare a brain with a picture cannot. It depends what the picture is doing. If you have a collection of detailed pictures of brains, and you organize them so that they are shown in different sequences according to some computation, isn't that a simulation of a brain? It is not. It is a description of a computation, not a computation. The computation is in the logical relation, which includes the counterfactuals. But the counterfactuals are theoretical rather than realistic. I will no more comment any statements using word like real, realistic, concrete, etc. How would you like to refer to the difference between an Escher portrait, in which lizards can come from paper and staircases can turn inside out, and the ordinary world which is presented in which such things are understood to be obviously and permanently impossible? The computation is like an Escher drawing, it can do things that would be impossible for a real brain and cannot do or be real in ways that a brain must necessarily be. A picture is just the next step in abstraction toward the sub-theoretical, but it is actually one step more concrete in aesthetic realism. A real picture of a triangle is closer to consciousness than a computation for the Mandelbot Set, which is only a theory until it is presented graphically to a visual participant. Now, we do describe computation by some description, and so this confusion is frequent. But it is the same type of confusion between ciphers and numbers. Ciphers and sequence of ciphers are not numbers. It is the cionfusion between 345 and 345. Both 345 and 345 are still pictures. ? I ask myself if you get the notion of number. Yes, but the notion of number is not the necessarily true. It may not refer to something which exists, but rather common sense of the gaps between what exists. They can only be made meaningful when they are associated by a sensory experience in which some aesthetic content or expectation can be labelled with a string or value. What can I say? That follows from your theory. But your theory does not even try to explain the sensory experience. Of course. Explanation means only the translation from one aesthetic context to another. Sense experience is the primordial identity, so explaining it would be to appeal to the senseless. You assume the difficulty which I think computer science explains partially, and in a testable way. The existence of your theory is not by itself a refutation of a different theory. That's because the theory prevents the truth about it from being accessed. The theory of comp is blind to its blindness, and demands to be refuted only by those wearing blindfolds. To test fairly, you would have to take off the blindfold, but then the fact of your seeing would make the test redundant. In either case, consciousness makes no more sense as part of a brain or a machine than a picture. Right. We agree on that. But a brain can locally manifest a person. I don't think it can. So, if someone lost his body in some accident, but the rescuer saves the brain, and succeeded in connecting it to an artificial heart, and eventually an artificial body (but still with his natural brain). The guy behaves normally. He kept his job. But you tell me that he has become a zombie? The brain never stopped being an expression of the victim's life though. It is still his body in some sense, even if there is
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. If Barack Obama revealed that he was a machine, would that change your view of whether machines could be conscious? If nobody ever survived a translation into machine simulation, would that change your mind of whether consciousness can be simulated? The Chinese Room is not important. You are missing the whole point. Consciousness is beyond reason and cannot be discovered through evidence or argument, but sensory experience alone. So the Chinese Room is conscious not through evidence or argument, but through sensory experience alone. It would be if the Chinese Room had sensory experience. Our experience of the Chinese Room doesn't matter. The claim is that the consciousness of the room stands in relation to the physical room as the consciousness of a person stands in relation to the physical person. There is no 'physical person', there is a public facing body. A person is not a body. On one level of an animal's body there are organs which cannot survive independently of the body as a whole, but on another level all of those organs are composed of living cells which have more autonomy. Understanding this theme of coexisting but contrasting levels of description suggests that a room need not be comparable to the body of a living organism. Since the room is not something which naturally evolves of its own motives and sense, we need not assume that the level at which it appears to us as a room or machine is in fact the relevant level of description when considering its autonomy and coherence. In my view, the machine expresses only the lowest levels of immediate thermodynamic sensitivity according to the substance which is actually reacting, and the most distant levels of theoretical design, but with nothing in between. We do not have to pretend that there is no way to guess whether a doll or a cadaver might be conscious. With an adequate model of qualitative nesting and its relation to quantitative scale, we can be freed from sophism and pathetic fallacy. An observer might say that the Chinese Room or the AI in Her or Barack Obama naturally evolves of its own motives and sense after the point of creation. Those are fictional examples. I don't deny that many people find it plausible that machines can evolve their own motives, but I think that I understand why they are mistaken. It could not become John Wayne physically, and it could not become John Wayne mentally if the actual matter in John Wayne is required to reproduce John Wayne's mind, but you have not proved that the latter is the case. It has nothing to do with matter. There can only ever be one John Wayne. A person is like a composite snapshot of a unique human lifetime, and the nesting of that lifetime within a unique cultural zeitgeist. It's all made of the expression of experience through time. The matter is just the story told to us by the experiences of eyeballs and fingertips, microscopes, etc. What if it were revealed that John Wayne's body while he was asleep on the night of his 40th birthday was annihilated and replaced by a copy? Would you still say there can only be one John Wayne? What if you were annihilated at age 5, but you were replaced by a copy? Would you still say that the body using your name was you, even though you are not using it? Why couldn't we make a John Wayne Mk3 long after his death, who would stand in relation to John Wayne Mk2 as John Wayne Mk2 stood in relation to John Wayne Mk1? For the same reason that we can't build a model of Paris out of clay and have it actually become Paris. It is because the publicly measurable end of what we are is not sufficient to describe who we have been and who we are becoming. That's what Searle claims, which is why he makes the Room pass a Turing test in Chinese and then purports to prove (invalidly, according to what you've said) that despite passing the test it isn't conscious. The question of whether or not a Turing test is possible is beyond the scope of the the Chinese Room. The Room assumes, for the sake of argument, that Computationalist assumptions are true, and that a Turing type test would be useful, and that anything which could pass such a test would have to be
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God? I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Elan vital has never been found in organisms, or in anything else for that matter, so the obvious answer is YES, otherwise there would NEVER be an occasion to use the word life (except in the negative, but if every physical thing is not X then X is of no interest whatsoever) and the word life should be retired from the English language. I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, I agree, but neither omniscience nor omnipotence are among those key ideas behind the word God, the idea that He created the universe is closer to that core but still not quite there; after all the supreme being need not be perfect or infinite, He or she (it needs to be a being, if it's a it then it's not God) needs only to be better than the competition. But calling something God (as Einstein regrettably did) that has no goal and no purpose, that has zero intelligence and zero consciousness, that has nothing to do with morality, that does not hear our prayers much less answer them, and is not even a being is equivalent to calling something a dog even though the thing can not bark, does not have 4 legs, is not a mammal or even a vertebrate, needs to be plugged in and is very good at opening cans. To avoid confusion I would not call such a thing a dog, I would call it what it is, an electric can opener. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes floating around the web. They were real, real enough to provoke a furious response from thousands of American hillbillies in the 1930's such as: Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from. I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land. We deeply regret that you made your statement in which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest sources of discord in America. John K Clark On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that book is really informative about Einstein's religion. Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself had to say about God: it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. And: I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility And: The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. And: A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. And: I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was sometimes guilty of the same sin that members of this list habitually commit, falling in love not with the concept but with the English word God when all Einstein meant is awe at the structure of the world. John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks, John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous ignorance and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship that is epidemic on the everything list. John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Modal Logic (Part 2: From Leibniz to Kripke)
Hi Liz, Others, In the general semantic of Leibniz, we have a non empty set of worlds W, and some valuation of the propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) at each world. And we should be convinced than all formula, with A, B, C, put for any formula, of the type [](A-B) - ([]A - []B) []A - A []A - [][]A A - []A A - []A are all laws, in the sense that they are all true in all worlds in all Leibnizian multiverse. OK? Most are obvious (once familiarized with the idea 'course). Take []A - A. Let us prove by contradiction, to change a bit. Imagine there is world with []A - A is false. That means that in that world we have []A and ~A. But []A means that A is true in all world, so in that world we would have [A and ~A. Contradiction (all worlds obeys classical CPL). Test yourself by justifying in different ways the other propositions, again and again. But now, all that was semantic, and logicians are interested in theories. They want axioms and deduction rules. So, the question is: is there a theory capturing all the laws, true in all worlds in all Leibnizian multiverse? Answer: YES. Ah? Which one. S5. S5? Yes, S5. The fifth system of Lewis. Who did modal logical purely deductively, and S5 was his fifth attempt in trying to formalize a notion of deducibility. The axioms of S5 are (added to some axiomatization of CPL, like the one I gave you sometimes ago): [](A-B) - ([]A - []B) []A - A []A - [][]A A - []A The rules of S5 are: The modus ponens rule, like CPL axiomatization. The necessitation rule: derive []A from A. It can be proved that S5 can prove all the laws satisfied by all worlds in the Leibnizian multiverse. Those axioms are independent. For example you cannot prove A - []A from the other axioms using those rules. But how could we prove that? This was rather well known by few modal logicians. There is a curious article by Herman Weyl, the ghost of modality, were Herman Weyl illustrate both that he is a great genius, and a great idiot (with all my very deep and sincere respect). Modal logic has been very badly seen by many mathematicians and logicians. In the field of logic, modal logicians were considered as freak, somehow. Important philosopher, like Quine were also quite opposed to modal logic. So it was very gentle from Herman Weyl to attempt to give modal logic some serious considerations. He tried to provide a semantic of modal logic with intuitionist logic, but concluded that it fails, then with quantum logic, idem, then with provability logic (sic), but it fails. It fails because each time some axiom of S5 failed! This shows he was biased by the Aristotelian Leibnizian metaphysics. In fact he was discovering, before everybody, that there are many modal logics, and that indeed they provide classical view on many non standard logics. In fact, somehow, it is the first apparition of the hypostases in math (to be short). I really love that little visionary paper (if only I could put my hand on it). But if S5 is characterized by the Leibnizian multiverse. What will characterize the other modal logics? Well, there has been many other semantics, but a beautiful and important step was brought by Kripke. It is almost like the passage from the ASSA to the RSSA! The passage from absolute to relative. The passage from Newton to Einstein. Kripke will put some structure on the Leibnizian multiverse. He will relativize the necessities and possibilities. How? By introducing a binary relation on the worlds, called accessibility relation. Then he require this: []A is true in a world alpha =A is true in all worlds *accessible* from alpha. Exercise: what means A here? (cf A is defined by ~[]~A). So a Kripke multiverse is just a non empty set, with a binary relation (called accessibility relation). It is a Leibnizian multiverse, enriched by that accessibility relation. For []A being true, we don't require it to be true in all worlds, but only in all worlds accessible from some world (like the actual world, for example). Again a Kripkean law will be a proposition true in all worlds in all Kripke multiverse. Now I am a bit tired, so I give you the sequel in 2 exercises, or subject of meditation. 1) Try to convince yourself that the formula: [](A-B) - ([]A - []B) is a Kripkean law. It is satisfied in all worlds (meaning also all valuations of the propositional letters), in all Kripke multiverse. 2) try to convince yourself that none of the other formula are laws in all Kripke multiverse. Try to find little Kripke multiverse having some world contradicting those laws. Can you find *special* binary relations which would enforce some of those propositions to be law in those corresponding *special* Kripke multiverse? Advise. Draw potatoes for the worlds, with the valuation inside, and draw big readable arrow between two worlds when one is accessible from the
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several
others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter
13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and
NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that
1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of
it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event
horizon by the matter entering the black hole.
I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction
if you can provide an authoritative one.
In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the
basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading
of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black
hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT.
So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black
hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that
in plain English you can provide?
Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the
matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up
somewhere else, but there is no convincing argument that that must be true.
And if so you must come up with a VERY convincing argument that explains
why a BH still appears to contain all the mass producing its gravitational
field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore.
Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the
above.
Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual
authoritative reference that states your 1. and 2.?
BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate
world?
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:20:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the
difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the
uneven Hubble expansion of space around galaxies.
The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble
expansion. It seems to be as if moving masses left their gravitational
field behind them as they entered BHs. There is no known case in which
moving masses leave their gravitational fields behind them. That seems to
me to contradict GR.
Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still
causes gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he
believes.
All you would have had to do is look at the Wikipedia:
=
Deriving the Schwarzschild solution The Schwarzschild
solutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_solutionis one of the
simplest and most useful solutions of the Einstein
field equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations(see
general
relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity). It
describes spacetime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime in the
vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object. It is
worthwhile deriving this metric in some detail; the following is a
reasonably rigorous derivation that is not always seen in the textbooks.
Working in a coordinate
charthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_chartwith coordinates [image:
\left(r, \theta, \phi, t \right)] labelled 1 to 4 respectively, we begin
with the metric in its most general form (10 independent components, each
of which is a smooth function of 4 variables). The solution is assumed to
be spherically symmetric, static and vacuum. For the purposes of this
article, these assumptions may be stated as follows (see the relevant links
for precise definitions):
(1) A spherically symmetric
spacetimehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherically_symmetric_spacetimeis one
in which all metric components are unchanged under any
rotation-reversal [image: \theta \rightarrow - \theta] or [image: \phi
\rightarrow - \phi].
(2) A static spacetime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime is
one in which all metric components are independent of the time coordinate
[image:
t] (so that [image: \frac {\part g_{\mu \nu}}{\part t}=0]) and the
geometry of the spacetime is unchanged under a time-reversal [image: t
\rightarrow -t].
(3) A *vacuum solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equation* is one that
satisfies the equation [image: T_{ab}=0]. From the Einstein field
equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations (with
zero cosmological
constanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant),
this implies that [image: R_{ab}=0] (after contracting [image:
R_{ab}-\frac{R}{2} g_{ab}=0] and putting [image: R = 0]).
(4) Metric signature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_signature used
here is [image: (-,+,+,+)].
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 28 January 2014 18:25, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That's because the theory prevents the truth about it from being accessed. The theory of comp is blind to its blindness, and demands to be refuted only by those wearing blindfolds. To test fairly, you would have to take off the blindfold, but then the fact of your seeing would make the test redundant. Hi Craig Your use of the word blindness above prompts me to ask you a question that has long puzzled me about your ideas. What I don't understand is why the sense you posit as fundamental in your theory would not, in effect, be blind to itself. If I've understood you (which isn't necessarily the case, of course) sense is the inner dual of outer activity (or vice versa) - so that the complete picture is a sort of intrinsic/extrinsic duality. If that is the case, your ideas seem to bear a strong relation to panpsychist or panexperientialist theories. These latter theories do not, in general, dispute that extrinsic activity per se is fully explainable in its own terms (is reducible, for example, to the entities and processes described by physics) Rather, they additionally posit a basic sensory component accompanying these activities (i.e. an inner duality) that in some way summates, at the appropriate level, all the way up to conscious experience. The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including, crucially, the articulation of our very thoughts and beliefs about conscious phenomena - can at least in principle be exhausted by an extrinsic account. But if this be so, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such extrinsic behaviours could possibly make reference to any intrinsic remainder, even were its existence granted. It isn't merely that any postulated remainder would be redundant in the explanation of such behaviour, but that it is hardly possible to see how an inner dual could even be accessible in principle to a complete (i.e. causally closed) extrinsic system of reference in the first place. It might seem at first that comp (which also exploits an outer/inner distinction) is vulnerable to a similar line of criticism, but I believe it can escape it - unlike primitive-physical or (subject to your comments) primitive-sensory explanations - by building on the fundamental elements of reference from the ground up (so to speak). Comp (which derives from the study of computation, not computers, as you seem to assume rather often in your critique) is built on recursive webs of reference (notably self-reference) which bootstrap beyond proof or ostensive demonstration to incontrovertible truth (at least the arithmetical variety). This puts us in the position (assuming the comp hypothesis) of accepting our own incommunicable ability to access such incorrigible indexical truths - in common with the arithmetical machines we study - or concluding (per impossibile) that we too are truthless zombies. David -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide an authoritative one. You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT. But that's the equivalent mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to send out gravity. So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can provide? Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it pulls on itself, that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles. but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you must come up with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to contain all the mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore. Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the above. No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in fact there is speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from fluctuations in the metric. Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the Milky Way were created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in. Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual authoritative reference that states your 1. and 2.? No, it's common knowledge. Here's Sean Carroll's email, seancarr...@gmail.com; ask him. BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate world? I'm retired. I worked for the U.S. Navy. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 29 January 2014 05:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think that is impossible? Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from thirst. If Barack Obama revealed that he was a machine, would that change your view of whether machines could be conscious? If nobody ever survived a translation into machine simulation, would that change your mind of whether consciousness can be simulated? Yes. But you didn't answer my question. The Chinese Room is not important. You are missing the whole point. Consciousness is beyond reason and cannot be discovered through evidence or argument, but sensory experience alone. So the Chinese Room is conscious not through evidence or argument, but through sensory experience alone. It would be if the Chinese Room had sensory experience. Our experience of the Chinese Room doesn't matter. That's the question: could the Chinese Room have sensory experience? For entities such as Barack Obama, you guess that they do based on your observation of their behaviour. What if it were revealed that John Wayne's body while he was asleep on the night of his 40th birthday was annihilated and replaced by a copy? Would you still say there can only be one John Wayne? What if you were annihilated at age 5, but you were replaced by a copy? Would you still say that the body using your name was you, even though you are not using it? As a matter of fact, I was annihilated when I was 5. The atoms making up my body then are long gone, dispersed throughout the Earth and probably even beyond. Why couldn't we make a John Wayne Mk3 long after his death, who would stand in relation to John Wayne Mk2 as John Wayne Mk2 stood in relation to John Wayne Mk1? For the same reason that we can't build a model of Paris out of clay and have it actually become Paris. It is because the publicly measurable end of what we are is not sufficient to describe who we have been and who we are becoming. Do you think it is impossible that John Wayne was replaced by a copy at age 40 and nobody noticed? And he purports to do that by showing that despite external appearances the Chinese Room cannot be conscious because the components are not conscious, which you agree is not a valid argument. It's not because the components are not conscious, it is because the description of the Room or 'system' as a whole is consistent with the absence of consciousness. This is the double standard of functionalism which makes the hard problem hard. Functionalism asserts on the one hand that all functions of consciousness can be produced mechanically, but then the effect of consciousness could not provide any additional functionality to the mechanism. The hard problem exposes the hypocrisy of 'We don't need consciousness to explain everything when consciousness itself is what needs to be explained. The machine's definition of itself does not include consciousness. Building machines based on that definition will therefore not include consciousness. If the machine were conscious, then its definition of itself would include consciousness. Functionalism asserts that consciousness emerges from function, but it's a non sequitar to say that therefore consciousness should provide additional functionality. My hypotheses go further into the ontology of awareness, so that we are not limited to the blindness of measurable communication in our empathy, and that our senses extend beyond their own accounts of each other. Our intuitive capacities can be more fallible than empirical views can measure, but they can also be more veridical than information based methods can ever dream of. Intuition, serendipity, and imagination are required to generate the perpetual denationalization of creators ahead of the created. This doesn't mean that some people cannot be fooled all of the time or that all of the people can't be fooled some of the time, only that all of the people cannot be fooled all of the time. You still haven't come up with any reason better than a vague prejudice why, for example, the AI in the movie Her could not be conscious. Because she doesn't need to be conscious. She could just as easily be programmed as a chameleon, which analyzes the profile of each user and builds an ad hoc identity to reflect some Bayesian extraction of their preferences. Would such a chameleon have to be all of the different people that it pretends to be? Samantha in the film claims that
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Brent, I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind. And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is presumably your friend says via an email. Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who agree with you that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide some authoritative ones. And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black hole that produces the event horizon. Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported.. Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide an authoritative one. You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT. But that's the equivalent mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to send out gravity. So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can provide? Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it pulls on itself, that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles. but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you must come up with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to contain all the mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore. Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the above. No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in fact there is speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from fluctuations in the metric. Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the Milky Way were created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in. Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual authoritative reference that states your 1. and 2.? No, it's common knowledge. Here's Sean Carroll's email, seanc...@gmail.com javascript:; ask him. BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate world? I'm retired. I worked for the U.S. Navy. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
All, again a post FYI, not because I necessarily believe it. Edgar Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end. As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it’s hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling. That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity. Shu’s idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant. So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts. This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. *In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot exist in this cosmos.* It’s easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists. That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth. This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu’s universe. That’s in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work. The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate. But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world’s cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics in an attempt to square this circle. That paints Shu’s ideas in a slightly different perspective. There’s no need to abandon conservation of energy to make his theory work. That’s not to say Shu’s theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they say, is the echo of the Big bang. How it might arise in Shu’s cosmology isn’t yet clear but I imagine he’s working on it. Even if he finds a way, there will need to be some uncomfortable rethinking before his ideas can gain traction. His approach may well explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space and time. Rightly or wrongly, that’s a trade off that many will find hard. Let’s hope Shu sticks to his guns, if only for the sake of good old-fashioned debate Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Modal Logic (Part 2: From Leibniz to Kripke)
On 29 January 2014 08:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Liz, Others, Good morning Professor Marchal! In the general semantic of Leibniz, we have a non empty set of worlds W, and some valuation of the propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) at each world. And we should be convinced than all formula, with A, B, C, put for any formula, of the type [](A-B) - ([]A - []B) []A - A []A - [][]A A - []A A - []A are all laws, in the sense that they are all true in all worlds in all Leibnizian multiverse. OK? Yes. Most are obvious (once familiarized with the idea 'course). Take []A - A. Let us prove by contradiction, to change a bit. Imagine there is world with []A - A is false. That means that in that world we have []A and ~A. But []A means that A is true in all world, so in that world we would have [A and ~A. Contradiction (all worlds obeys classical CPL). Test yourself by justifying in different ways the other propositions, again and again. But now, all that was semantic, and logicians are interested in theories. They want axioms and deduction rules. So, the question is: is there a theory capturing all the laws, true in all worlds in all Leibnizian multiverse? Answer: YES. Ah? Which one. S5. S5? Yes, S5. The fifth system of Lewis. Who did modal logical purely deductively, and S5 was his fifth attempt in trying to formalize a notion of deducibility. The axioms of S5 are (added to some axiomatization of CPL, like the one I gave you sometimes ago): [](A-B) - ([]A - []B) []A - A []A - [][]A A - []A The rules of S5 are: The modus ponens rule, like CPL axiomatization. The necessitation rule: derive []A from A. ? derive []A from A ??? It can be proved that S5 can prove all the laws satisfied by all worlds in the Leibnizian multiverse. Those axioms are independent. For example you cannot prove A - []A from the other axioms using those rules. But how could we prove that? This was rather well known by few modal logicians. There is a curious article by Herman Weyl, the ghost of modality, were Herman Weyl illustrate both that he is a great genius, and a great idiot (with all my very deep and sincere respect). He said that our minds crawl up our worldlines didn't he? Thereby giving lots of people the wrong idea about how a block universe works. Modal logic has been very badly seen by many mathematicians and logicians. In the field of logic, modal logicians were considered as freak, somehow. Important philosopher, like Quine were also quite opposed to modal logic. So it was very gentle from Herman Weyl to attempt to give modal logic some serious considerations. He tried to provide a semantic of modal logic with intuitionist logic, but concluded that it fails, then with quantum logic, idem, then with provability logic (sic), but it fails. It fails because each time some axiom of S5 failed! This shows he was biased by the Aristotelian Leibnizian metaphysics. In fact he was discovering, before everybody, that there are many modal logics, and that indeed they provide classical view on many non standard logics. In fact, somehow, it is the first apparition of the hypostases in math (to be short). I really love that little visionary paper (if only I could put my hand on it). It comes up a lot if you google - I think you have to belong to various academic groups to read it...maybe you would be able to? But if S5 is characterized by the Leibnizian multiverse. What will characterize the other modal logics? Well, there has been many other semantics, but a beautiful and important step was brought by Kripke. It is almost like the passage from the ASSA to the RSSA! The passage from absolute to relative. The passage from Newton to Einstein. Kripke will put some structure on the Leibnizian multiverse. He will relativize the necessities and possibilities. How? By introducing a binary relation on the worlds, called accessibility relation. Then he require this: []A is true in a world alpha =A is true in all worlds *accessible* from alpha. Exercise: what means A here? (cf A is defined by ~[]~A). it isn't the case that in all worlds accessible from alpha, A is false. Or in at least one world accessible from alpha, A is true. So a Kripke multiverse is just a non empty set, with a binary relation (called accessibility relation). It is a Leibnizian multiverse, enriched by that accessibility relation. For []A being true, we don't require it to be true in all worlds, but only in all worlds accessible from some world (like the actual world, for example). Again a Kripkean law will be a proposition true in all worlds in all Kripke multiverse. Now I am a bit tired, so I give you the sequel in 2 exercises, or subject of meditation. 1) Try to convince yourself that the formula: [](A-B) - ([]A - []B) is a Kripkean law. It is satisfied in all worlds (meaning also all valuations of the propositional
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable. Those are the properties of the god of computationalism: arithmetical truth So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of comp? Well I guess that's one way to know what goar is - and a popular way at that. ... You have removed my quote from its original context, in which I was providing various examples of God-like things which various theories (popular on this list) are a direct consequence of. If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's just call it goar. And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar. There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an explaination of. But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent, infinite, etc... or even singular. Right, so let's try and find out. If this is science and not religion That's a false dichotomy. Why not apply scientific methods in the furtherance of religion? we must find out what goar is and its attributes - not assume them at the start. I agree. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Brent, Let me ask you some questions to clarify what you are saying here... To make it simpler assume two observers, A and B. A is stationary on the surface of a hugely massive planet. Now B plummets past him in free fall. Consider the situation as B passes A just before he hits the ground. I agree B is in free fall in inertial motion along a geodesic so there is no gravitational field experienced nor any acceleration. However A is experiencing an intense gravitational acceleration because the surface of the planet resists his free fall. Now assume another observer C outside the gravitational field. Now who sees whose clock slow and by how much and for what reason? There are 6 cases as each of the 3 observers observes the clocks of 2 others. Specifically does C see the clocks of A and B slow equally? Does B's clock actually slow because he's accelerating in a gravitation field, but A's clock doesn't because he is free falling? Does A see C's clock slow the same amount as C sees A's slow? Does B see C's clock slow the same amount as C sees B's slow? How do A and B view each other's clocks? When B hits the ground does his clock change its speed (assuming it survives the hit)? This would have to be the case if A's and B's clocks were running at different rates as B plummets past A. Thanks, Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 2:25:21 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/27/2014 5:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous because it doesn't specify frames of reference correctly. The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's clock, but obviously not by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of course ACTUALLY objectively ticking slower because it is falling into a gravity well which is an absolute, not a relative phenomenon. Contrary to what you said, the object's comoving clock DOES actually 'physically' (your words) tick slower. it's just that the infalling clock can't measure its own slowing... Obviously one can't tell how fast a clock is ticking by comparing the clock to itself. That's proper time which always appears to tick at the same rate, but ONLY because all comoving processes tick in synch. Proper time does NOT measure an actual gravitational time dilation, or any time dilation for that matter. The infalling observer has an ABSOLUTE slowing of its clock due to increasing gravitation but just cannot locally measure that slowing. The infalling observer just falls in an goes about his business (assuming a very large BH) until he gets spaghettified by tidal forces near the singularity. There's no slowing of his clock. What could possibly be the mechanism for slowing it? He's on an inertial frame. He isn't even accelerated. For the clock to slow would be a violation of the principle of equivalence. Thus in the infalling observer's experience as his clock slows he will never actually reach the event horizon because his clock comes to a complete ACTUAL PHYSICAL stop at that point. Nope. Try reading Lewis Carroll Epstein's Relativity Visualized. A good clock keeps proper time along its world line. Gravitational time dilation is a purely geometric effect of spacetime (just like the twin paradox). The clock *appears* to run slower in the gravitational well because it has to traverse more space. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Brent, But the twins DO AGREE on whose clock ran slower. So I don't see your point if you use the twins as evidence... Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:27:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jesse, First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only with standard physics. 2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more. In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or acceleration the effects are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them. Take 2 observers A in a gravitational well and B not. In this case B observes A's clock SLOW, and A observes B's clock rate SPEED up. They AGREE as to this effect. They can't agree on that. They can only agree via signals the their clocks *appear* to run at different rates. Just like the twins in the SR twin paradox. AND the clock time difference PERSISTS after A and B meet up afterwards when their clocks are again running at the same rate. Therefore in my terminology it is an absolute effect. It is a real and actual effect, that both observers agree upon. This is well understood and confirmed because it's used in GPS calculation corrections all the time. Yes, it's real that they have traveled through different intervals of spacetime - just like the twins in the twin paradox. You seem determined to ignore the basic principle of GR, it is a *geometric theory of spacetime* Geometry doesn't make clocks change speed. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Brent, PS: If geometry doesn't make clocks slow then what does? Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:17:56 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, But the twins DO AGREE on whose clock ran slower. So I don't see your point if you use the twins as evidence... Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:27:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jesse, First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only with standard physics. 2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more. In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or acceleration the effects are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them. Take 2 observers A in a gravitational well and B not. In this case B observes A's clock SLOW, and A observes B's clock rate SPEED up. They AGREE as to this effect. They can't agree on that. They can only agree via signals the their clocks *appear* to run at different rates. Just like the twins in the SR twin paradox. AND the clock time difference PERSISTS after A and B meet up afterwards when their clocks are again running at the same rate. Therefore in my terminology it is an absolute effect. It is a real and actual effect, that both observers agree upon. This is well understood and confirmed because it's used in GPS calculation corrections all the time. Yes, it's real that they have traveled through different intervals of spacetime - just like the twins in the twin paradox. You seem determined to ignore the basic principle of GR, it is a *geometric theory of spacetime* Geometry doesn't make clocks change speed. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind. It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of matter (you know what vacuum means?), forms a BH. If you added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH. And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is presumably your friend says via an email. So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look him up!? I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar. Brent Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who agree with you that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide some authoritative ones. And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black hole that produces the event horizon. Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported.. Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html http://casa.colorado.edu/%7Eajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide an authoritative one. You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT. But that's the equivalent mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to send out gravity. So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can provide? Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it pulls on itself, that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles. but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you must come up with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to contain all the mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore. Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the above. No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in fact there is speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from fluctuations in the metric. Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the Milky Way were created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in. Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual authoritative reference that states your 1. and 2.? No, it's common knowledge.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
I imagine this is he: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll That took a good 5 seconds! On the subject of a BH not containing matter, surely that depends on whether there really *is* a singularity inside it? If it's a genuine singularity, as GR suggests, then any original matter that went into its formation has disappeared down an infinite plughole, and there's no way to tell if the BH was formed from matter, antimatter, energy, vacuum fluctuations, gravitational waves, or whatever else is possible. The resulting object only has mass, spin and electric charge. (The famous no hair theorem.) (By the way, what's so special about electromagnetism that it leaves an imprint on a BH when the weak force and hypercharge and whatever other oddities are around don't?) However, the no hair theorem runs afoul of the equally famous BH information paradox. QM at least suggests that something may turn out to be necessary besides the GR formulation, and that whatever it is will allow the information about what went into making the BH to (very much in principle) be recoverable. On 29 January 2014 13:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind. It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of matter (you know what vacuum means?), forms a BH. If you added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH. And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is presumably your friend says via an email. So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look him up!? I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar. Brent Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who agree with you that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide some authoritative ones. And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black hole that produces the event horizon. Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported.. Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide an authoritative one. You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT. But that's the equivalent mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to send out gravity. So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can provide? Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it pulls on itself, that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Brent, That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any authoritative sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH collapses into the singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the black hole. Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot of his theories are highly speculative and unconfirmed... Here, on the other hand, is a quote from Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' which says otherwise: The hole must be born when a star implodes upon itself; THE HOLE'S MASS, AT BIRTH MUST BE THE SAME AS THE STAR'S; AND EACH TIME SOMETHING FALLS INTO THE HOLE, ITS MASS MUST GROW So again your theory is a highly speculative INTERPRETATION of the equations you mention which so far as you can demonstrate is NOT a mainstream scientific understanding of BH's. So who's hopeless now? (I wouldn't have added this barb if you hadn't BTW) Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind. It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of matter (you know what vacuum means?), forms a BH. If you added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH. And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is presumably your friend says via an email. So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look him up!? I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar. Brent Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who agree with you that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide some authoritative ones. And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black hole that produces the event horizon. Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported.. Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide an authoritative one. You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT. But that's the equivalent mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to send out gravity. So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can provide? Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it pulls on itself, that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles. but there is no convincing argument
