Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

[Philip Thrift]

I agree completely with Strawson that the type of qualia-free computational 
approach suggested by some is nothing but *zombieism*.

All the viable computational frameworks (like Donald Hoffmann's) - when 
closely examined - depend on this:

*Conscious agent networks:*
*Formal analysis and application to cognition*
http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/CA-circuits-CSR-rev.pdf

The CA framework says nothing about the nature of experience. It says 
nothing about qualia;* it simply assumes that qualia exist*, that agents 
experience them, and that they can be tokened.
 

There would have to be "revolution" (or at least "updating") in the current 
scientific vocabulary of physics - the vocabulary conventionally written in 
2020 - to match the Strawson view. (CHIMP: consciousnessive hypo-intrinsic 
massless particle). But that is perfectly OK, since physics or any science 
- as written - is not a fixed catechism, like the Ten Commandments written 
in stone for Moses.

(I am not quite happy with Bruno's response, but it is better.)

@philipthrift

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 3:33:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> I quite agree with Strawson that physics, and science in general, doesn't 
> tell us about the ding und sich of consciousness or anything else.  But I 
> notice that he completely avoids any similar level description or 
> definition of qualia.  Over and over he says "You know what I mean."  So 
> his denial adds nothing.  In contrast the idea that consciousness is a 
> particular kind of computation does lead somewhere...it leads to AI and 
> analysis and possibly even repair of brains.  It leads to consciousness 
> engineering.
>
> The student questions are quite good...better than Strawson's answers.
>
> Brent
>
> On 4/4/2020 1:07 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU
>
> "there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ 
> physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world and 
> all-out belief in the reality of consciousness, conscious experience, good 
> old fashioned qualia - whatever you want to call it or them"
> -- Galen Strawson
>
> @philpthrift
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5f0ff3bc-12b5-47ab-a9be-094d12622499%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

I quite agree with Strawson that physics, and science in general, 
doesn't tell us about the ding und sich of consciousness or anything 
else.  But I notice that he completely avoids any similar level 
description or definition of qualia.  Over and over he says "You know 
what I mean."  So his denial adds nothing.  In contrast the idea that 
consciousness is a particular kind of computation does lead 
somewhere...it leads to AI and analysis and possibly even repair of 
brains.  It leads to consciousness engineering.


The student questions are quite good...better than Strawson's answers.

Brent

On 4/4/2020 1:07 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU

"there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ 
physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world 
and all-out belief in the reality of consciousness, conscious 
experience, good old fashioned qualia - whatever you want to call it 
or them"

-- Galen Strawson

@philpthrift

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/691a9228-0fbf-4cdb-a850-bfd5f7a88509%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b090eed0-2092-eb2c-5780-838e5a0a5120%40verizon.net.

The death rate

[John Clark]

On Wednesday April 1 at 17:34 GMT 4,516 Americans had died from COVID-19
and that is greater than the 4415 that died in the two decade long Iraq
war. On Friday April 3 at 17:00  GMT 6714 Americans had died from COVID-19
and that is greater than the 6637 Americans that had died in the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars combined. And right now, on Saturday April 4 at 16:08 GMT
7847 have die from it, and the US only had its first COVID-19 death on
March 1.

Only 2 countries in the world have a higher number of COVID-19 deaths than
the US, Italy and Spain. Italy's number of deaths is doubling every 10
days. Spain's number of deaths is doubling every 6 days. The number of
deaths in the US is doubling every 3 days, and no nation that has had more
than 25 deaths has a faster doubling time than that. Iran, which not long
ago was considered the prototypical example of a nation that had totally
bungled it's response to the virus, has a doubling time of 2 weeks.

And yet the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo issued a very strange warning yesterday,
it said due to a "significant increase in the number of coronavirus
infections" US citizens should leave Japan. But where are they supposed to
go, back to the US? Japan has 2306 cases of COVID-19 and deaths from it are
doubling every 3 weeks, the US has 291,322cases of COVID-19 and deaths from
it are doubling every 3 days.

Germany has over 90,000 people infected with COVID-19, only the US, Italy
and Spain have more, but for some reason the deaths from it is remarkably
low there, only 1.3%; in comparison the death rate in Italy is 12%, in
Spain it's 10%, in the US it's 2.5%. Part of the reason may be Germany's
aggressive use of testing and their excellent health care system, they tend
to hospitalize people who test positive for the virus even if their
symptoms are mild because they have built lots of intensive care beds for
them and they know their condition can change for the worse very rapidly
and their chances of survival are much better if they're in a hospital when
that happens. The death rate in the US will certainly increase when doctors
start rationing ventilators and are forced to decide who should live and
who should die, and that will probably begin in the next week.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv06dn343ztKF7NSywNG7v9JYUq%2B%2BHTZ2yvErKpq_ntnwA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Apr 2020, at 10:59, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russell Standish  > wrote:
> I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise
> wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then
> antisymmetry is impossible. Bosons have symmetric pairwise
> wavefunctions (you can swap two bosons, and nothing changes), hence it
> is possible to have more than one boson in the same state.
> 
> As I recall it, this is completely right. I think it all goes back to the 
> nature of the 4-component spinors of Dirac theory -- rotation by 360 degrees 
> changes the sign, necessitating the antisymmetric nature of the quantum 
> state. Fermi-Dirac statistics, and as has been said, the fundamental 
> spin-statistics theorem.

That’s what I recall too, notably from my reading of the Feynman Lecture on 
Quantum Mechanics. It is clearer in the relativistic setting perhaps, I am not 
sure.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce 
> 
> I'd have to go back to my class notes of QM to check this of course,
> just speaking from 35+ years ago when I last studied this.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:16:51AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> > It is reasonable to state the Pauli exclusion principle is a postulate on 
> > its
> > own. There are though other possibilities. With supersymmetry, parafermions,
> > bosonization and now fermionization of bosons the role of the PEP is not
> > entirely certain. 
> > 
> > LC
> > 
> > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:09:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> > 
> > Does the Pauli's Exclusion Principle have a similar status in QM as 
> > Born's
> > rule; namely, an empirical fact not derivable from the postulates of QM?
> > TIA, AG
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSNeqFM1WzjzwF3fe%3DC9pfEvPtreHgTZ%3DsDybj4np840Q%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7A3B2C85-9BCC-4C7F-94E3-C0753FF52313%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Apr 2020, at 10:07, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU 
> 
> 
> "there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ 
> physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world and 
> all-out belief in the reality of consciousness, conscious experience, good 
> old fashioned qualia - whatever you want to call it or them"
> -- Galen Strawson

I am not sure that there is no conflict there,  even with a non-mechanist 
theory of mind. But with mechanism, and most of its weakening, there is a 
conflict, as the physicalist position stop to make any sense (see my papers for 
the proof of this, or ask me). 

With mechanism, we have a precise mathematical theory of consciousness and 
qualia, and it is testable as the quanta are explained by a subtheory of the 
qualia. In fact quanta are almost entirely characterised by being sharable 
quanta.

Bruno




> 
> @philpthrift
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/691a9228-0fbf-4cdb-a850-bfd5f7a88509%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F0CF380C-975E-4B8B-B472-40A90E490538%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

[Lawrence Crowell]

That is basically the case. The fermionic wave function is ψ is such that 
under the parity operator Pψ = -ψ. The standard example is the sin 
function. 

This gets more subtle with bosonization with χ = ψexp(εψ), where with ε^2 = 
0 then  χ = ψ + εψψ so there is a fermionic plus the square of fermions = 
bosonic part. For ε a Grassmann number this is a form of supersymmetry. The 
Thirring fermion theory with a quartic V = ψ^†ψψ^†ψ potential leads to a 
bosonization of fields φ with a sin(φ) terms that gives the sine-Gordon 
equation. This describes the Josephson junction theory of 
superconductivity.  There are further developments with parafermions and so 
forth, and evcn how bosons can in restricted dimension give fermions. There 
is waiting in the wings I think a general physics of fermions and bosons.

LC

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 3:36:17 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise 
> wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then 
> antisymmetry is impossible. Bosons have symmetric pairwise 
> wavefunctions (you can swap two bosons, and nothing changes), hence it 
> is possible to have more than one boson in the same state. 
>
> I'd have to go back to my class notes of QM to check this of course, 
> just speaking from 35+ years ago when I last studied this. 
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:16:51AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
> > It is reasonable to state the Pauli exclusion principle is a postulate 
> on its 
> > own. There are though other possibilities. With supersymmetry, 
> parafermions, 
> > bosonization and now fermionization of bosons the role of the PEP is not 
> > entirely certain.  
> > 
> > LC 
> > 
> > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:09:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > 
> > Does the Pauli's Exclusion Principle have a similar status in QM as 
> Born's 
> > rule; namely, an empirical fact not derivable from the postulates of 
> QM? 
> > TIA, AG 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ 
> > everything-list/3996ad4e-cd70-474f-94d6-8e6b7bf310ce%40googlegroups.com. 
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>   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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b6388ac6-341b-4d56-ae12-a7aee958c369%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise
> wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then
> antisymmetry is impossible. Bosons have symmetric pairwise
> wavefunctions (you can swap two bosons, and nothing changes), hence it
> is possible to have more than one boson in the same state.
>

As I recall it, this is completely right. I think it all goes back to the
nature of the 4-component spinors of Dirac theory -- rotation by 360
degrees changes the sign, necessitating the antisymmetric nature of the
quantum state. Fermi-Dirac statistics, and as has been said, the
fundamental spin-statistics theorem.

Bruce

>
> I'd have to go back to my class notes of QM to check this of course,
> just speaking from 35+ years ago when I last studied this.
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:16:51AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> > It is reasonable to state the Pauli exclusion principle is a postulate
> on its
> > own. There are though other possibilities. With supersymmetry,
> parafermions,
> > bosonization and now fermionization of bosons the role of the PEP is not
> > entirely certain.
> >
> > LC
> >
> > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:09:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> >
> > Does the Pauli's Exclusion Principle have a similar status in QM as
> Born's
> > rule; namely, an empirical fact not derivable from the postulates of
> QM?
> > TIA, AG
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSNeqFM1WzjzwF3fe%3DC9pfEvPtreHgTZ%3DsDybj4np840Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

[Russell Standish]

I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise
wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then
antisymmetry is impossible. Bosons have symmetric pairwise
wavefunctions (you can swap two bosons, and nothing changes), hence it
is possible to have more than one boson in the same state.

I'd have to go back to my class notes of QM to check this of course,
just speaking from 35+ years ago when I last studied this.

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:16:51AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> It is reasonable to state the Pauli exclusion principle is a postulate on its
> own. There are though other possibilities. With supersymmetry, parafermions,
> bosonization and now fermionization of bosons the role of the PEP is not
> entirely certain. 
> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:09:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> Does the Pauli's Exclusion Principle have a similar status in QM as Born's
> rule; namely, an empirical fact not derivable from the postulates of QM?
> TIA, AG
> 
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> everything-list/3996ad4e-cd70-474f-94d6-8e6b7bf310ce%40googlegroups.com.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20200404083558.GA2556%40zen.

Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU

"there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ 
physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world and 
all-out belief in the reality of consciousness, conscious experience, good 
old fashioned qualia - whatever you want to call it or them"
-- Galen Strawson

@philpthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/691a9228-0fbf-4cdb-a850-bfd5f7a88509%40googlegroups.com.