Re: AUDA (was David Shoemaker, Personal Identity)
On 24 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Günther Greindl wrote:
Hi,
I would say the Universal Soul. To be the ONE? The difficulty is
that
Plotinus is not always clear.
I go now from my reading of mystical texts, not from the arithmetic
interpretation - and here mystics often report feeling at one with
the
universe, everything etc.
I would say that this is the realization that your true nature (to be
more precise than before) is not different than that of the ONE/dao/
etc.
I am OK with this. But it is beyond word.
Lao Tse said the Dao which has a name is not the Dao. Plotinus said
the ONE is ineffable, ...
The universal soul hypostase *is* a first person (or a theory about
a first person). Some would say it is just an abstract person. That
it is just the least common part of all souls, or in the arithmetical
toy theology, that is the common part of all first persons
Ok, I think attaining this minimal person is also a meditative
state,
but the full mystical experience reported in all cultures etc would be
union with the ONE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophia_perennis
QUOTE:
The Perennial Philosophy is expressed most succinctly in the Sanskrit
formula, tat tvam asi ('That thou art'); the Atman, or immanent
eternal
Self, is one with Brahman, the Absolute Principle of all existence;
and
the last end of every human being, is to discover the fact for
himself,
to find out who he really is.
Aldous Huxley
END QUOTE
I agree. But up to now I can really talk about this trough both comp
and the arithmetical self-reference.
This leads to open mathematical problems.
total amnesia (forgetting not just who you are, but that you are, +
forgetting everything up to the idea of time and space), yet
remaining
conscious, if not being even much more conscious with the feeling
that
memories are making you less conscious, and that a memory-brain is a
filter on histories. Stable memories differentiate consciousness
Yes, I agree, I think brains/memories are filters on histories; but
the
above description of pure consciousness - what introspective reason
leads you to believe that that is still the experience of a (minimal)
person an not already experience of the source? (I like to change
words for the ONE so that no connotations become entrenched; after
all, it is described as the ineffable)
OK, but the term source has many connotations too. All terms are
wrong.
With comp truth is the less wrong, in the language of a Lobian
machine working out the theology of a simpler machine.
No introspective reason leads me to believe the experience of the
Universal Soul is different from the fusion with the One.
It is purely mathematical reason which leads me to make a distinction
in the mathematical theology.
Any machine *asserting* it has fused with the ONE, is provably wrong.
A problem for comp is that, well at least I have thought that comp
makes the soul (the first person, the third hypostase) conscious only
through its building or generating time. But the salvia reports and
my
own experiences make me think I could be wrong there.
Indeed, a first person, namely, what we call a person (narrative,
history, agency, autonomy etc) requires temporality.
Yes, it is weird. I am very confused about this.
AUDA in short.
Ok, you have whetted my appetite, now I will have to read the Plotinus
paper ;-)
Plotinus, for me, is mainly a good pedagogical path. It helps also to
recast the machine interview in the human philosophies.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: AUDA (was David Shoemaker, Personal Identity)
Hi,
I would say the Universal Soul. To be the ONE? The difficulty is that
Plotinus is not always clear.
I go now from my reading of mystical texts, not from the arithmetic
interpretation - and here mystics often report feeling at one with the
universe, everything etc.
I would say that this is the realization that your true nature (to be
more precise than before) is not different than that of the ONE/dao/etc.
The universal soul hypostase *is* a first person (or a theory about
a first person). Some would say it is just an abstract person. That
it is just the least common part of all souls, or in the arithmetical
toy theology, that is the common part of all first persons
Ok, I think attaining this minimal person is also a meditative state,
but the full mystical experience reported in all cultures etc would be
union with the ONE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophia_perennis
QUOTE:
The Perennial Philosophy is expressed most succinctly in the Sanskrit
formula, tat tvam asi ('That thou art'); the Atman, or immanent eternal
Self, is one with Brahman, the Absolute Principle of all existence; and
the last end of every human being, is to discover the fact for himself,
to find out who he really is.
Aldous Huxley
END QUOTE
total amnesia (forgetting not just who you are, but that you are, +
forgetting everything up to the idea of time and space), yet remaining
conscious, if not being even much more conscious with the feeling that
memories are making you less conscious, and that a memory-brain is a
filter on histories. Stable memories differentiate consciousness
Yes, I agree, I think brains/memories are filters on histories; but the
above description of pure consciousness - what introspective reason
leads you to believe that that is still the experience of a (minimal)
person an not already experience of the source? (I like to change
words for the ONE so that no connotations become entrenched; after
all, it is described as the ineffable)
A problem for comp is that, well at least I have thought that comp
makes the soul (the first person, the third hypostase) conscious only
through its building or generating time. But the salvia reports and my
own experiences make me think I could be wrong there.
Indeed, a first person, namely, what we call a person (narrative,
history, agency, autonomy etc) requires temporality.
AUDA in short.
Ok, you have whetted my appetite, now I will have to read the Plotinus
paper ;-)
Cheers,
Günther
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
AUDA (was David Shoemaker, Personal Identity)
On 23 Feb 2009, at 02:21, Günther Greindl wrote: Hi Stathis, Bruno, List, the copy can be you in deeper and deeper senses (roughly speaking up to the unspeakable you = ONE). I talk here on the first person you. It is infinite and unnameable. Here computer science can makes those term (like unnameable) much more precise. I don't see how the copy could be me in a deeper sense than having all my thoughts, memories etc. It would be like saying that if I wave my magic wand over you you will become specially blessed, even though nothing will actually change either subjectively or objectively. You must take into account Bruno's Plotinian interpretation: the One, the Intellect, and the Universal Soul. In this sense, you can become more you in that you penetrate false knowledge Maya and realize your true nature (the Dao, if you like, roughly the ONE in Plotinus). I would say the Universal Soul. To be the ONE? The difficulty is that Plotinus is not always clear. Obvioulsy he did not dispose of an arithmetical interpretation. Formidably enough he is aware that numbers can play a big role there, like most neoplatonists. The universal soul hypostase *is* a first person (or a theory about a first person). Some would say it is just an abstract person. That it is just the least common part of all souls, or in the arithmetical toy theology, that is the common part of all first persons corresponding to the ideally correct machines. But (with comp) we can make the point that such a person *is* conscious. A sort of confirmation is given by the thought of some mystic (Plotinus, Ibn Arabi, ...), but also from experience reports of those who experiments with Salvia Divinorum, which makes possible to have a total amnesia (forgetting not just who you are, but that you are, + forgetting everything up to the idea of time and space), yet remaining conscious, if not being even much more conscious with the feeling that memories are making you less conscious, and that a memory-brain is a filter on histories. Stable memories differentiate consciousness. A problem for comp is that, well at least I have thought that comp makes the soul (the first person, the third hypostase) conscious only through its building or generating time. But the salvia reports and my own experiences make me think I could be wrong there. @Bruno: What I have come to wonder: you take the Löbian Machine to be the model of a person - say, a human. But what if the Löbian Machine is actually (and only) the ultimate person - the universal soul, in Plotinus' terminology. OK. It is the ultimate person, but also the initial person.It is a baby god. The one who has to fall from truth to be able to go back to truth, but then the impossible marriage between just addition and multiplication explains (assuming we are digital) why we can lost our selves in an infinitely complex labyrinth of realities. This would account for the infinite (continuum!) histories (lived through the lives of all beings in the multiverse), the universal soul forgetting itself in a cosmic play, sort of - but also for COMP immortality - immortal would be the _universal soul_, but not necessarily concrete persons (as we conceive them, which requires at least some continuity of memory etc) I think you are quite correct. Except I would say all first persons feel themselves always as being concrete (in all situations, OMs, worlds, ...). Even an amnesic person can feel herself concrete, even if she forgets the meaning of the word concrete. And see what I said to Stathis, the point where I don't follow Parfit: we are never 100% concrete. Concreteness is always relative to a probable history. We are always abstract, immaterial types relatively embedded in infinitely many types of histories (computations seen from inside). So, like in Hinduism it seems comp gives the two main form of immortality: the one when you remember you are the universal soul, and the one which makes you live again, and again, and again, from mornings to mornings, from lives to lives, exploring the many realities. I think this happens when you don't remember you are the universal soul. That remembering is somewhat paradoxical, and, to be sure hard to extract from the interview of the universal machine. It is really an amnesia of an amnesia. Perhaps a forgetful functor in the category of the models of Lobian machines. I don't *know*! The incompleteness prevents the consistent machines to ever come back on earth with the last step of that remembering. It does not prevent the machine to commit that last step, only to come back with the memory of that step. Hmmm ... This could look a bit mystical, so I should recall AUDA, for the benefit of some others. AUDA in short. For the correct machine, the incompleteness makes obligatory to have a theology, in the sense that she
