Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> But how complete must the self-model be. 

That is the 64 million dollar question.

> As Bruno has pointed out, it can't
> be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house keeping"self-knowledge,
> like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, time,...

I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to
recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like
itself.

> Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them learning and
> planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation which
> included some representation of themself; but that representation might be
> very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan includes a
> representation of yourself, but probably only as a location.
>

Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather
simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might
have some sort of consciousness.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/17/2019 6:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:25:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Rover is conscious, but still dissociated from ‘rover”. But that is just
because it has no strong induction axiom, and no way to build approximation of
models of itself. It lack a re-entring neural system rich enough to  manage the
gap between its first person apprehension, and the third person apparent
reality around it.





 The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an
 entity "Telmo" in whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real
 self-reference.


I agree. It is unclear for me if Mars Rover has it, or not, as I have not seen
the code, and even seeing it, it could ba a Helle of a difficulty to prove it
has not that ability. I doubt it has it, because Naza does not want a free
exploratory on Mars, but a docile slave.


I do think self-reference has something to do with it, as without an
observer to give meaning to something, it has no meaning. For
instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
a machine, it is just a pile of atoms. Unless you propose a la Bishop
Berkley some sort of devine mind from which all meaning radiates, the
only other possibility is that each consciousness bootstraps its own
meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self model in
its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way),


But how complete must the self-model be.  As Bruno has pointed out, it 
can't be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house 
keeping"self-knowledge, like battery charge, temperature, power draw, 
next task, location, time,...  Of course current rovers don't have AI 
which would entail them learning and planning, which would require that 
they be able to run a simulation which included some representation of 
themself; but that representation might be very simple.  When you plan 
to travel to the next city your plan includes a representation of 
yourself, but probably only as a location.


Brent


then I would
extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness. A more interesting
possibility is Hod Lipson's "starfish" robot, which has self-reference baked
in.

Cheers




--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

*I see no new text in this message. AG*

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/17/2019 5:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote: 



 On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
 He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent 
 space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative 
 at that 
 point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 


 Sort of.  

>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate 
>>> system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So 
>>> spacetime has 
>>> a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is 
>>> generally 
>>> non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the 
>>> region around 
>>> that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent 
>>> space at 
>>> that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative 
>>> as zero 
>>> at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a 
>>> Riemannian space.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
>> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle 
>> in 
>> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 
>>
>> It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on 
>> it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space 
>> coordinates.  
>> The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local 
>> free-fall 
>> which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on 
> test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an 
> external 
> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent 
> plane 
> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. 
> If 
> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove 
> the 
> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG
>
>
> You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made 
> fictitious 
> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your 
> reference 
> frame you get coriolis forces.  
>

 If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of 
 coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate 
 system) 
 how does GR explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the 
 absence 
 of non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG

>>>
>>> Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  
>>> interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical 
>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:25:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Rover is conscious, but still dissociated from ‘rover”. But that is just
> because it has no strong induction axiom, and no way to build approximation of
> models of itself. It lack a re-entring neural system rich enough to  manage 
> the
> gap between its first person apprehension, and the third person apparent
> reality around it.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an
> entity "Telmo" in whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real
> self-reference.
> 
> 
> I agree. It is unclear for me if Mars Rover has it, or not, as I have not seen
> the code, and even seeing it, it could ba a Helle of a difficulty to prove it
> has not that ability. I doubt it has it, because Naza does not want a free
> exploratory on Mars, but a docile slave.


I do think self-reference has something to do with it, as without an
observer to give meaning to something, it has no meaning. For
instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
a machine, it is just a pile of atoms. Unless you propose a la Bishop
Berkley some sort of devine mind from which all meaning radiates, the
only other possibility is that each consciousness bootstraps its own
meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self model in
its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would
extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness. A more interesting
possibility is Hod Lipson's "starfish" robot, which has self-reference baked
in.

Cheers


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/17/2019 5:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM
UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at
10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at
7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019
at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:





He might have
been referring to
a transformation
to a tangent
space where the
metric tensor is
diagonalized and
its derivative at
that point in
spacetime is
zero. Does this
make any sense?


Sort of.



Yeah, that's what he's
doing. He's assuming a
given coordinate
system and some
arbitrary point in a
non-empty spacetime.
So spacetime has a non
zero curvature and the
derivative of the
metric tensor is
generally non-zero at
that arbitrary point,
however small we
assume the region
around that point. But
applying the EEP, we
can transform to the
tangent space at that
point to diagonalize
the metric tensor and
have its derivative as
zero at that point.
Does THIS make sense? AG


Yep.  That's pretty
much the defining
characteristic of a
Riemannian space.

Brent


But isn't it weird that
changing labels on
spacetime points by
transforming coordinates
has the result of putting
the test particle in local
free fall, when it wasn't
prior to the
transformation? AG


It doesn't put it in
free-fall.  If the particle
has EM forc

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote: 



 On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>

>>> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent 
>>> space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at 
>>> that 
>>> point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>>>
>>>
>>> Sort of.  
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate 
>> system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So 
>> spacetime has 
>> a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is 
>> generally 
>> non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region 
>> around 
>> that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent 
>> space at 
>> that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative 
>> as zero 
>> at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG
>>
>>
>> Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a 
>> Riemannian space.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle 
> in 
> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 
>
> It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on 
> it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space 
> coordinates.  
> The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local 
> free-fall 
> which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.
>
> Brent
>

 In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on 
 test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an 
 external 
 observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent 
 plane 
 at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. 
 If 
 this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove 
 the 
 gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG


 You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
 gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made 
 fictitious 
 forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your 
 reference 
 frame you get coriolis forces.  

>>>
>>> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of 
>>> coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate 
>>> system) 
>>> how does GR explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the 
>>> absence 
>>> of non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG
>>>
>>
>> Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 
>>
>>
>> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  
>> interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical 
>> construct which, with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, 
>> describes observed phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical 
>> construct is solely and precisely that it is  expected to work.
>> --—John von Neumann
>>
>>
>>> Another problem is the inconsistency 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/16/2019 11:08 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:



On 4/16/2019 6:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every 
Mars Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its 
instruments, its communications link, what time it is, what its 
mission plan is.


I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels 
is an example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of 
discussion. The entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, 
but there is no "Mars Rover mind" where it also exists. The entity 
"Telmo" exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an entity 
"Telmo" in whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real 
self-reference.


Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like 
this could me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, 
you can define a program P like this:


program P:
    x = 1
    if x == 1:
    print('My variable x s holding the value 1')

The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to. It 
would be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm 
is x cm long. But let me show what could me meant instead by real 
self-reference:


program P:
    if length(P) > 1000:
    print('I am a complicated program')
    else:
    print('I am a simple program')

Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?


I take your point.  But I think the difference is only one of 
degree.  In my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and 
topology.   That entails having a model of the world, admittedly 
simple, in which the Rover is represented by itself.


I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
self-reference.  It's just a part of intelligence to run 
"simulations" in trying to foresee the consequences of potential 
actions.  The simulation must generally include the actor at some 
level.  It's not some mysterious property raising up a ghost in the 
machine.


With self-reference comes also self-modification. The self-replicators 
of nature that slowly adapt and complexify, the brain "rewiring 
itself"... Things get both weird and generative. I suspect that it 
goes to the core of what human intelligence is, and what computer 
intelligence is not (yet). But if you say that self-reference has not 
magic property that explains consciousness, I agree with you.


On consciousness I have nothing interesting to say (no jokes about 
ever having had, please :). I think that:


consciousness = existence

Existence entails self-referential machines, self-referential 
evolutionary processes, the whole shebang. But not the other way around.


Can't really be an equality relation then.  It's 
existence=>self-reference  and maybe consciousness.  But I'm not sure 
what "=>" symbolizes.  Not logical entailment.  Maybe nomological 
entailment?


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM
UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at
7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at
4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:





He might have been
referring to a
transformation to a
tangent space where
the metric tensor is
diagonalized and its
derivative at that
point in spacetime is
zero. Does this make
any sense?


Sort of.



Yeah, that's what he's
doing. He's assuming a
given coordinate system and
some arbitrary point in a
non-empty spacetime. So
spacetime has a non zero
curvature and the
derivative of the metric
tensor is generally
non-zero at that arbitrary
point, however small we
assume the region around
that point. But applying
the EEP, we can transform
to the tangent space at
that point to diagonalize
the metric tensor and have
its derivative as zero at
that point. Does THIS make
sense? AG


Yep.  That's pretty much the
defining characteristic of a
Riemannian space.

Brent


But isn't it weird that changing
labels on spacetime points by
transforming coordinates has the
result of putting the test
particle in local free fall,
when it wasn't prior to the
transformation? AG


It doesn't put it in free-fall. 
If the particle has EM forces on
it, it will deviate from the
geodesic in the tangent space
coordinates. The transformation
is just adapting the coordinates
to the local free-fall which
removes gravity as a force...but
not other forces.

Brent


In both cases, with and without
non-gravitational forces acting on
test particle, I assume the
trajectory appears identical to an
external observer, before and after
coordinat

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent 
>> space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at 
>> that 
>> point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>>
>>
>> Sort of.  
>>
>
>
> Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate 
> system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So 
> spacetime has 
> a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is 
> generally 
> non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region 
> around 
> that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent 
> space at 
> that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative 
> as zero 
> at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG
>
>
> Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a 
> Riemannian space.
>
> Brent
>

 But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
 transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle 
 in 
 local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 

 It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on 
 it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space 
 coordinates.  
 The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local 
 free-fall 
 which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.

 Brent

>>>
>>> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on 
>>> test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external 
>>> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent 
>>> plane 
>>> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. 
>>> If 
>>> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the 
>>> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
>>> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made 
>>> fictitious 
>>> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your 
>>> reference 
>>> frame you get coriolis forces.  
>>>
>>
>> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate 
>> system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does 
>> GR 
>> explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of 
>> non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG
>>
>
> Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 
>
>
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  
> interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical 
> construct which, with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, 
> describes observed phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical 
> construct is solely and precisely that it is  expected to work.
> --—John von Neumann
>
>
>> Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational 
>> force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which 
>> apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG
>>
>
> It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am 
> merely pointing out the inconsi

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM
UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM
UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at
4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:





He might have been
referring to a
transformation to a tangent
space where the metric
tensor is diagonalized and
its derivative at that
point in spacetime is zero.
Does this make any sense?


Sort of.



Yeah, that's what he's doing.
He's assuming a given coordinate
system and some arbitrary point
in a non-empty spacetime. So
spacetime has a non zero
curvature and the derivative of
the metric tensor is generally
non-zero at that arbitrary
point, however small we assume
the region around that point.
But applying the EEP, we can
transform to the tangent space
at that point to diagonalize the
metric tensor and have its
derivative as zero at that
point. Does THIS make sense? AG


Yep.  That's pretty much the
defining characteristic of a
Riemannian space.

Brent


But isn't it weird that changing
labels on spacetime points by
transforming coordinates has the
result of putting the test particle
in local free fall, when it wasn't
prior to the transformation? AG


It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If
the particle has EM forces on it, it
will deviate from the geodesic in the
tangent space coordinates.  The
transformation is just adapting the
coordinates to the local free-fall
which removes gravity as a force...but
not other forces.

Brent


In both cases, with and without
non-gravitational forces acting on test
particle, I assume the trajectory appears
identical to an external observer, before
and after coordinate transformation to the
tangent plane at some point; all that's
changed are the labels of spacetime
points. If this is true, it's still hard
to see why changing labels can remove the
gravitational forces. And what does this
buy us? AG


You're looking at it the wrong way around. 
There never were any gravitational forces,
just your choice of coordinate system made
fictitious forces appear; just like when
you use a merry-go-round as your reference
frame you g

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 11:11:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 17 Apr 2019, at 01:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 4/16/2019 6:42 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> >> In the experientialist (Strawson-Goff-etc. "panpsychist" view): 
> experiential qualia (EQ) exist in matter at some level on their own -- and 
> EQ cannot be reduced to information (numbers). 
> >> 
> >> So real "selfness" cannot be achieved in any "Gödel-Löb-etc." theorem 
> prover running on the so-called conventional computer. 
> >> 
> >> Now some future biological computers -- made via synthetic biology -- 
> open new possibilities. 
> > 
> > What makes them "biological"?  Do they have to be made of amino acids? 
>  nuclei acids?  do they have to be powered by a phosphate cycle?  What 
> makes one bunch of biological molecules conscious and another very similar 
> bunch dead, or anesthesized? 
> > 
> > The only coherent answer is that consciousness is realized by certain 
> information processing...independent of the molecules instantiating the 
> process. 
>
> Good point, and this is what will lead, when assuming the process are 
> digital, to associate a mind to all “enough similar” digital process 
> realised, in the precise sense of Church and Turing, in arithmetic. It is 
> the same information which os processed, at the “right” level, which exist 
> by the assumption of digital mechanism. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
Information may be sufficient to compose consciousness, but I am skeptical. 
Wheeler said "it from bit" (or "qbit"), but I say "xbit".


φbits = 2bits+qbits(physical bits: information)
ψbits = xbits   (psychical bits: experience)


https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/2bits-qbits-xbits-a-cosmos/

- pt 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:18, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> It's actually the other way around: biology is realized by certain processes 
> happening in consciousness. Biology is just an external appearance of 
> internal processes happening in consciousness.


I totally agree. More exactly, the classical (paltonist) universal machine 
agree with you, except it makes precise the assumption of 
numbers/combiantors/machine, and the consciousness is the consciousness of the 
universal machine.

It is like:

Number => self-reference (1p = consciousness) => “interfering dream/histories” 
=> matter => human consciousness

Bruno




> 
> On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 02:29:24 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
> 
> What makes them "biological"?  Do they have to be made of amino acids?  
> nuclei acids?  do they have to be powered by a phosphate cycle?  What 
> makes one bunch of biological molecules conscious and another very 
> similar bunch dead, or anesthesized? 
> 
> The only coherent answer is that consciousness is realized by certain 
> information processing...independent of the molecules instantiating the 
> process. 
> 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/16/2019 6:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
 You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every Mars 
 Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, its 
 communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.
>>> 
>>> I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels is an 
>>> example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of discussion. The 
>>> entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, but there is no "Mars 
>>> Rover mind" where it also exists. The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind 
>>> and mine, and I happen to be an entity "Telmo" in whose mind the entity 
>>> "Telmo" also exists. This is real self-reference.
>>> 
>>> Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like this 
>>> could me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, you can 
>>> define a program P like this:
>>> 
>>> program P:
>>> x = 1
>>> if x == 1:
>>> print('My variable x s holding the value 1')
>>> 
>>> The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to. It would 
>>> be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm is x cm long. 
>>> But let me show what could me meant instead by real self-reference:
>>> 
>>> program P:
>>> if length(P) > 1000:
>>> print('I am a complicated program')
>>> else:
>>> print('I am a simple program')
>>> 
>>> Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?
>> 
>> I take your point.  But I think the difference is only one of degree.  In my 
>> example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology.   That 
>> entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the Rover 
>> is represented by itself. 
>> 
>> I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
>> self-reference.  It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in 
>> trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions.  The simulation 
>> must generally include the actor at some level.  It's not some mysterious 
>> property raising up a ghost in the machine.
> 
> With self-reference comes also self-modification. The self-replicators of 
> nature that slowly adapt and complexify, the brain "rewiring itself"... 
> Things get both weird and generative. I suspect that it goes to the core of 
> what human intelligence is, and what computer intelligence is not (yet). But 
> if you say that self-reference has not magic property that explains 
> consciousness, I agree with you.


You need some magic, but the magic of the truth of  “2+3=5” is enough. 




> 
> On consciousness I have nothing interesting to say (no jokes about ever 
> having had, please :). I think that:
> 
> consciousness = existence


Hmm… That looks like God made it. Or like “it is”.

Are you OK with the ideas that from the point of view of a conscious entity, 
consciousness is something:

Immediately knowable, and indubitable, (in case the machine can reason)
Non definable, and non provable to any other machine.

Then the mathematical theory of self-reference explains why machine will 
conclude that they are conscious, in that sense. They will know that they know 
something that they cannot doubt, yet cannot prove to us, or to anyone. And 
they can understand that they can test mechanism by observation.




> 
> Existence entails self-referential machines, self-referential evolutionary 
> processes, the whole shebang. But not the other way around.

Existence of the natural numbers + the laws of addition and multiplication does 
that, and also justify what you don’t get any of that with any weaker theory, 
having less axioms, than Robinson Arithmetic.

We have to assume numbers if we want just define precisely what a machine is, 
but we cannot assume a physical universe: that is the price, we have to derive 
it from arithmetic “seen from inside”.

Bruno




> 
> Telmo.
> 
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Telmo
>>> 
 
Whether it is "formalizable" or not would seem to depend on choosing 
 the right formalization to describe what engineers already create.
 
 Brent
 
 
 On 4/15/2019 11:28 AM, za_wishy via Everything List wrote:
> Hmm... the thing is that what I'm arguing for in the book is that 
> self-reference is unformalizable, so there can be no mathematics of 
> self-reference. More than this, self-reference is not some concept in a 
> theory, but it is us, each and everyone of us is a form of manifestation 
> of self-reference. Self-reference is an eternal logical structure that 
> eternally looks-back-at-itself. And this looking-back-at-itself 
> automatically generates a subjective ontology, an "I am". In other words, 
> the very definition o

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Apr 2019, at 18:56, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 18:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> Because Rover is just a bunch of atoms. Is nothing more than the sum of 
>> atoms. But in the case of self-reference/emergence, each new level is more 
>> than the sum of the previous levels. 
> 
> I disagree. My position on this is that people are tricked into thinking that 
> emergence has some ontological status, when if fact it is just an 
> epistemological tool. We need to think in higher-order structures to simplify 
> things (organisms, organs, mean-fields, cells, ant colonies, societies, 
> markets, etc), but a Jupiter-brain could keep track of every entity 
> separately and apprehend the entire thing at the same time. Emergence is a 
> mental shortcut.
> 
> Self-reference is another matter (pun was accidental).


OK.

Third person self-reference is P(x) = F(x, ‘P’).

First person self reference is … something more subtle, related to this person 
self-reference, but with a God knowing that the lmachine refers correctly to 
itself, and the machine accessing to that knowledge at some level (as is the 
case with mechanism).



> 
>> 
>> I don't know how you can trick yourself so badly into believing that if you 
>> put some rocks together, the rocks become alive. Maybe because you think 
>> that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it is now. If you were to 
>> measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, you would see that they 
>> are not moving according to known physics, but they are being moved by 
>> consciousness.
> 
> For me, this is yet another version of "God did it". There is no point in 
> attempting to explain some complex behavior if the explanation is even more 
> complex and mysterious.

I completely agree. 

Now, if the pshycis in the head of all universal machine differs from what we 
observe, we can have evidence that something more complex needs to be assume, 
but that means either that Mechanism is false, or that we are in a malevolent 
simulation (we are intentionally lied).



> 
>> 
>> And this doesn't happen in a machine. In a machine, electrons move according 
>> to known physics.
> 
> These are fairly extraordinary claims. Do you have any empirical data to 
> support them?


Only physical machine have electron, and electron are only emergent from the 
arithmetical truth seen by universal number inside. 

With mechanism, is emergent = not real, physics and natural science = not real, 
but yet, it obeys laws, and is phenomenologically real for all universal 
number/machine. (Up to now, given that nature confirmes mechanism, and thus 
seems to refute physicalism.

Bruno





> 
> Telmo.
> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 15:25:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> How can you argue that Rover has no knowledge, when you say that knowledge 
>> is not formalisable?
>> 
>> Introducing some fuzziness to claim a negative thing about a relation of the 
>> type consciousness/machine is a bit frightening. It reminds the catholic 
>> older sophisticated “reasoning” to assert that Indians have no soul.
>> 
>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:10, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every Mars Rover 
>> knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, its 
>> communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.
> 
> I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels is an 
> example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of discussion.

It is a correct third person self-reference, like when someone says I have two 
legs is correct in the case ha has two legs. 



> The entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, but there is no "Mars 
> Rover mind" where it also exists.

I would say that there is surely a tiny one, but not something like what we get 
from the second recursion theorem, which make a machine able to compute any 
function applies to its own code.

Third person self-reference is the base of the whole recursion theory, and the 
trick which makes this definable is Kleene’s theorem, as I have sometimes 
explained.

More difficult is to capture the first person self, but we got it by the 
“meta”-invocation of the notion of truth. 
Rover is conscious, but still dissociated from ‘rover”. But that is just 
because it has no strong induction axiom, and no way to build approximation of 
models of itself. It lack a re-entring neural system rich enough to  manage the 
gap between its first person apprehension, and the third person apparent 
reality around it.





> The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an entity 
> "Telmo" in whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real 
> self-reference.

I agree. It is unclear for me if Mars Rover has it, or not, as I have not seen 
the code, and even seeing it, it could ba a Helle of a difficulty to prove it 
has not that ability. I doubt it has it, because Naza does not want a free 
exploratory on Mars, but a docile slave.



> 
> Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like this could 
> me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, you can define a 
> program P like this:
> 
> program P:
> x = 1
> if x == 1:
> print('My variable x s holding the value 1')
> 
> The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to.

Yes, but it can work for Rover’s task, and I agree it is less sophisticated 
compared to genuine “second recursion”.





> It would be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm is x 
> cm long. But let me show what could me meant instead by real self-reference:
> 
> program P:
> if length(P) > 1000:
> print('I am a complicated program')
> else:
> print('I am a simple program')
> 
> Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?


OK. Perfect. That one is definable by using Kleene second recursion theorem. 
But it is still “this person self-)reference”, the first person experience 
needs to involve the concept of truth (making the first person non definable by 
the first person, but still mathematically precise for anyone assuming the 
entity is sound (which indeed the entity itself cannot justify rationally).

Bruno




> 
> Telmo
> 
>> 
>>Whether it is "formalizable" or not would seem to depend on choosing the 
>> right formalization to describe what engineers already create.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/15/2019 11:28 AM, za_wishy via Everything List wrote:
>>> Hmm... the thing is that what I'm arguing for in the book is that 
>>> self-reference is unformalizable, so there can be no mathematics of 
>>> self-reference. More than this, self-reference is not some concept in a 
>>> theory, but it is us, each and everyone of us is a form of manifestation of 
>>> self-reference. Self-reference is an eternal logical structure that 
>>> eternally looks-back-at-itself. And this looking-back-at-itself 
>>> automatically generates a subjective ontology, an "I am". In other words, 
>>> the very definition of the concept of "existence" is the 
>>> looking-back-at-itself of self-reference. So, existence can only be 
>>> subjective, so all that can exists is consciousness. I talk in the book how 
>>> the looking-back-at-itself implies 3 properties: identity (self-reference 
>>> is itself, x=x), inclusion (self-reference is included in itself, x>> transcendence (self-reference is more than itself, x>x). And all these 
>>> apparently contradictory properties are happening all at the same time. So, 
>>> x=x, xx all at the same time. But there is no actual contradiction 
>>> here, because self-reference is unformalizable. The reason why I get to 
>>> such weird conclusions is explored throughout the book where a 
>>> phenomenological analysis of consciousness is done and it is shown how it 
>>> is structured on an emergent holarchy of levels, a holarchy meaning that a 
>>> higher level includes the lower levels, and I conclude that this can only 
>>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Apr 2019, at 01:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/16/2019 6:42 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> In the experientialist (Strawson-Goff-etc. "panpsychist" view): experiential 
>> qualia (EQ) exist in matter at some level on their own -- and EQ cannot be 
>> reduced to information (numbers).
>> 
>> So real "selfness" cannot be achieved in any "Gödel-Löb-etc." theorem prover 
>> running on the so-called conventional computer.
>> 
>> Now some future biological computers -- made via synthetic biology -- open 
>> new possibilities.
> 
> What makes them "biological"?  Do they have to be made of amino acids?  
> nuclei acids?  do they have to be powered by a phosphate cycle?  What makes 
> one bunch of biological molecules conscious and another very similar bunch 
> dead, or anesthesized?
> 
> The only coherent answer is that consciousness is realized by certain 
> information processing...independent of the molecules instantiating the 
> process.

Good point, and this is what will lead, when assuming the process are digital, 
to associate a mind to all “enough similar” digital process realised, in the 
precise sense of Church and Turing, in arithmetic. It is the same information 
which os processed, at the “right” level, which exist by the assumption of 
digital mechanism.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Apr 2019, at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 1) What does "third-person" self-reference mean ?

It is when a program/machine/number invokes itself, in any third person way.

When you say that you have a problem to a tooth, that is third person 
self-reference, verifiable by the dentist.
When you say that you feel some toothache, that is first person self-reference, 
not verifiable by anybody.







> To me, this would be equivalent to "third-person color red", which clearly is 
> not the case for red to be third-person, since red only exists in an 
> ontological subjective manner.

That is the first person self-reference. Note that I have given here many 
thought experience making this easily understandable, without delving in the 
second recursion theorem, used to make this mathematically clean.




> 
> 2) What "machine" ? What "self of the machine" ? "Machine" is just a concept 
> in human consciousness. It doesn't exist beyond merely a concept.

Church’s thesis makes it 100% mathematically precise.There is no such 
definition of machine in physics. A physical machine is a concept, but an 
arithmetical machine is a precise notion, whose existence follows from 2+2=4 (& 
Co.).




> 
> 3) Phenomenological is the only type of existence.

It is an experience. To add ontology to such experience makes things more 
complex, if not unsolvable. It is the main “mistake” in Aristotle 
theology/metaphysics.



> Everything else is merely an extrapolation starting from phenomenological 
> existence.


All theories are extrapolations. But personal consciousness is not a theory, 
even if it is the only certain things. Theories are never certain.




> i.e. I see an unicorn in my subjective first person existence, and then I 
> extrapolate and say that that unicorn somehow has an independent existence 
> from it being just a quale in my consciousness, which clearly is false.

It is more than a quale, but unicorn, like bicorns, might only exist 
phenomenologically.

The goal is to explain consciousness, so I prefer not to assume it at the 
start. The same for matter. With mechanism, we have to assume only elementary 
arithmetic.



> 
> 4) You can set yourself all kinds of goals as you want. But this doesn't mean 
> that reality is the way you want it to be. You can wish for red to be agreed 
> upon by everyone, but a blind person will not agree.

True. But I do not claim that Digital Mechanism is true. I say that Digital 
Mechanism explains consciousness and matter, so, by comparing the observation 
and the matter in the mind of the Turing machine, we can test mechanism, and up 
to now it works, where physicalism is already refuted.



> 
> 5) There is only 1 notion of the Self: "I Am". But I would be interested to 
> find out the 8 types of Self that you mention.

I limit myself to sound (arithmetically) rational machine (if they believe A 
and A-A, they will believe B).

I define “believe rationally” by Gödel’s arithmetical provability predicate, 
written []A. (A is provable by me).
Incompleteness makes impossible for the machine to prove that []A -> A, nor 
that []A -> <>A, making the logic of []A & A (Theatetus’ definition of 
knowledge) working for the machine. Provability is believability, not 
knowledgeability after Gödel’s theorem, so the 8 nuances are given by the 
following variant, with p a (sigma_1, partial computable) arithmetical 
sentences;

p. (Truth of p)
[]p.(Provability of p)
[]p & p

and

[]p & <>t
[]p & <>t & p

That gives eight logics, as three of them are divided into two, again by 
incompleteness.

I can come back on this later. We get intutionistic logic for the first person, 
and quantum logic for the notion of matter, which is confirmed by independent 
studies based on empirical inference.









> 
> 6) You can look at the emergent phenomenology. For example, in the visual 
> domain you have: black-and-white -> shades-of-gray -> colors -> shapes -> 
> objects -> full visual scene. All these levels have the properties that each 
> level inherits the qualities of the previous levels, while also bringing into 
> existence its own quality.

But it is the same for functionality. A machine is not just the addition of its 
parts, and it makes new things that not parts can do. That type of things is 
reflected in the first person domain, but the qualities comes from the 
intersection with Truth/meaning/semantics. 






> For example, the reason why a color can variate from lighter to darker is 
> because it inherits in itself the quality of shades-of-gray. And if you think 
> carefully about this, this is possible because of the properties of 
> self-reference that I just mentioned, x=x (color is itself), x (shades-of-gray are included in color), x>x (color is more than the 
> shades-of-gray).


The universal machine can agree or disagree with this, except for your bizarre 
role that you give to identity (x=x), where self-reference, by any entities, 
wi

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/16/2019 11:55 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
1) They are just ideas. Like the idea of "planet Vulcan" that 
disappeared when the set of ideas that gave birth to it have been 
replaced with other set of ideas. In the future, the idea of "dark 
matter" will also disappear when the set of ideas "General Relativity" 
will be replaced by other set of ideas. What remains constant in all 
these changes is the consciousnesses that have the ideas.
Maybe you are referring to the fact that we have no absolute free 
will. And this is certainly true. We don't know what makes us 
experience certain qualia and not others. I don't have the ability to 
choose to imagine a new color. And this is indeed a problem that needs 
to be solved.


2) Learning is a property of consciousness. So no, robots don't learn 
anything, in the same way that if I step in the mud, mud doesn't 
"learn" the shape of my foot.


Sometimes you say there is no magic involved in your theory.  But then 
you insist that only you are conscious.  Nothing that is not shaped like 
Visan, perhaps nothing else at all, can be conscious. Why?  Magic.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/16/2019 11:23 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
1) Well... It might be a very specific arrangement of atoms, but they 
are still governed by Newton's Laws. Is not like if you put them in 
certain order magic happens and new things start to appear. It  has no 
memory, no purpose and no ability to act, since memory, purpose and 
ability to act are properties of consciousness.


But a Mars Rover with artificial intelligence does have purpose, to 
collect and analyze various data.  It has the ability to act, to travel, 
to take samples, to communicate.  It has memory of its purpose, where 
it's been, and for an AI system, even the ability to learn.  Yes, no 
magic happens.  But new things start to appear just as certain 
arrangements of atoms are your computer that can transform and display 
these symbols but in another arrangement would be just a lump of metal 
and plastic.




2) Try removing yourself from the house in the middle of the winter. 
You will stop experience warmth, but this doesn't mean that the quale 
of warmth is generated by the house.


True.  But something is different about inside and outside the house 
that is not ONLY in your consciousness, because others agree about it 
and measure it...it's called temperature.




3) I have done the thinking. I don't have to do the experiment to know 
it is true.


That's what all the scholastics thought.

Brent



On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:00:14 UTC+3, Brent wrote:

1)
First, that's false.  The Rover is a very specific arrangement of
atoms interacting with a specific environment.  It has memory,
purpose, and the ability to act.

2)

Try removing the phosphate atoms from your brain and see what you
believe...if anything.


Maybe because you think that the brain is just a bunch of atoms.
No, it is now. If you were to measure what the electrons are
doing in the brain, you would see that they are not moving
according to known physics, but they are being moved by
consciousness.

3)

And have you done this observation?  A Nobel prize awaits.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Yes, I understand your ToE is like ideal monism.  But it is one thing to 
assert it.  It is another to derive some predictions from it.


Brent

On 4/16/2019 11:18 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
It's actually the other way around: biology is realized by certain 
processes happening in consciousness. Biology is just an external 
appearance of internal processes happening in consciousness.


On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 02:29:24 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


What makes them "biological"?  Do they have to be made of amino
acids?
nuclei acids?  do they have to be powered by a phosphate cycle?  What
makes one bunch of biological molecules conscious and another very
similar bunch dead, or anesthesized?

The only coherent answer is that consciousness is realized by certain
information processing...independent of the molecules
instantiating the
process.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


>>
> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent 
> space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at 
> that 
> point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>
>
> Sort of.  
>


 Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate 
 system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime 
 has 
 a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is 
 generally 
 non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region 
 around 
 that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent 
 space at 
 that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as 
 zero 
 at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG


 Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a 
 Riemannian space.

 Brent

>>>
>>> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
>>> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in 
>>> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 
>>>
>>> It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on 
>>> it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates. 
>>>  
>>> The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local 
>>> free-fall 
>>> which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on 
>> test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external 
>> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent 
>> plane 
>> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If 
>> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the 
>> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG
>>
>>
>> You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
>> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made 
>> fictitious 
>> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference 
>> frame you get coriolis forces.  
>>
>
> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate 
> system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR 
> explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of 
> non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG
>

 Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 


 The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, 
 they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct 
 which, with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes 
 observed phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is 
 solely and precisely that it is  expected to work.
 --—John von Neumann


> Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational 
> force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which 
> apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG
>

 It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely 
 pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other 
 forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG 


 That's one possibility, e.g entropic gravity.


>  
>
>> What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence 
>> principle.  And of course Einstein's theory a

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:42:14 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> 1) Oh, I'm clearly not making that mistake. When I talk about emergence, I 
> talk about ontological emergence, not the hand-waving epistemic kind that 
> people usually talk about. The emergence that I'm talking about is the 
> emergence of new qualia on top of previously existing qualia. This is what 
> my book is about. So it's the real deal. Alternatively, have a look at my 
> presentation from the Science & Nonduality conference where I talk about 
> The Emergent Structure of Consciousness, where I talk about ontological 
> emergence and I specifically mention to the audience that the epistemic 
> emergence is false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ 
> And what realizes the ontological emergence is self-reference through its 
> property of looking-back-at-itself, with looking-back becoming more than 
> itself, like in the cover of the book.
>
> 2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is 
> doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will 
> gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all 
> people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that 
> robots are alive.
>
> 3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And 
> they start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The 
> "brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>
>
>>

 
The panpsychist says

   *Matter is all there is, but matter has experientiality.*

The proposed alternative is

*Experientiality is all there is, while matter is illusion. *


As science has proceeded so far as the study of matter, I'm not sure how 
the alternative (vs. panpsychism) helps in the science of consciousness.

- pt





-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Also putting you some blind glasses will make your visual qualia go away. 
This doesn't mean that the glasses are what generates qualia.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 06:13:21 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> We know enough about matter that adding a little alcohol to your 
> bloodstream or a small blow to the head (but not the foot) will make you 
> qualia go away.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) Rover doesn't know anything, since knowing is a property of 
consciousness. Rover doesn't have a model of the world, since having a 
model of the world means being aware of a world, and awareness is a 
property of consciousness. What does "Rover is represented by itself" even 
mean ? I think what you're doing now is to talk about properties that you, 
as a consciousness, have them, and carelessly starting to attribute those 
properties to lifeless objects. I would suggest a more rigorous thinking 
process. Don't haste in applying concepts where they don't belong.

2) Is it you that don't understand the meaning of self-reference, that's 
why you fail to understand its usage. Self-reference is not "a ghost in the 
machine", but is an eternal logical structure that is the source of all 
existence. By employing its eternal property of looking-back-at-itself, 
self-reference finds objects in itself and gives birth to all the 
consciousnesses in the world.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 06:03:34 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> 1)
>
 
>
I take your point.  But I think the difference is only one of degree.  In 
> my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology.   That 
> entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the Rover 
> is represented by itself.  
>
> 2)
>
 
>
I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
> self-reference.  It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in 
> trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions.  The simulation 
> must generally include the actor at some level.  It's not some mysterious 
> property raising up a ghost in the machine.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.