Re: Consciousness and free will
Bruno, you deal in hard words. I still could not 'generalize' the BETTER etc. as views applied for our (narrow, present, limited) HUMAN circumstances, with respect to our actual interests and possibilities - our culture. I had a discussion about 'torture' (US politix) and my opponent asked: is to cut off an arm not torture, if it is in the interest of saving the rest of the body? Similarly: ...normality made possible by the QM statistics... *Norms?* of what and how etablished? *QM* as basis for norms? *statistix* as the count of a kind WITHIN the chosen items from a selected cut - where another (maybe larger?) cut might produce a different number? One cannot exercise the statistical numbers on 'infinite' totality. And the big one: *E T H I X* (pardon me the 'x') - a cultural religion - of the arbitrary good/bad decisions, (Plotinus's naive example fits in it perfectly). I consider your ...But frankly this *is* speculation, and the main ethics will remain respect the others and yourself or things like that as for a 'milder term': for human morality. (It is tricky to differentiate ethics vs. morality). These are items of the human mentality - not influencing the totality in general, (however our influence can be shown how we may change nature). Then again it is a question: would have been nature different at all, or our inference was the necessary thing in the 'natural process'? I am totally against the use of a conditional term - si nisi non esset perfectum quodlibet esset - and who knows what is 'perfect'? Not our human ways, that is for sure, do they serve our 'survival' or 'good', or not. John M On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM, M.A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *I don't know about Bruno, but I'm just referring to the ordinary person's attempts to improve his life in such categories as: love, health, creative fulfillment, prosperity, wisdom and so forth.m.a.* ** ** ** - Original Message - *From:* John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:30 AM *Subject:* Re: Consciousness and free will m.a. and Bruno: *BETTER OUTCOME???* better for whom? better than what? Judging human? JohnM On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit : Bruno, Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better outcomes, the entire group advances? Yes (assuming QM), thanks to the notion of normality made possible by the QM statistics. Hopefully so with the comp hyp, but strictly speaking this is not yet proved. If the worst are always proportionately opposite to the best, and the best keep improving themselves, don't they pull the worst up with them? Just a hopeful thought. But with that notion of normality, the worst should not be proportionately opposite to the best. If you decide to improve yourself, all your you will improve, except the unlucky one who will get some white rabbits on their way. Here, both comp and QM, is like classical statistic, and roughly speaking you can expect all outcomes to be possible, but with *highly* different proportion. If you decide to do a cup of coffee, in almost all histories you will drink coffee, they will be just a little infinity or little measure of worlds where the coffee will taste like tea, or where the boiling water will freeze. I tend to think that the ethics behind QM and comp are the same usual ethics of the non eliminativist materialist, except that with comp, such ethics can be grounded on a sort of general modesty principle. (They will be opportunity to come back on that modesty issue). A priori, the comp theory of Good/Bad is NOT like in Plotinus theory. Plotinus believed that if someone do something BAD, the same amount of BAD will occur to him, soon or later. He gives a curious example which is no doubt a bit shocking to our ears: he says that if a man rapes a woman then ... he will be reincarnated into a woman and be raped by a man! I think there is something true in that comment, but not if taken literally. With comp, I can speculate on common laws for heat, love and money: they could obey to similar global conservation principle together with local creation rule. But frankly this *is* speculation, and the main ethics will remain respect the others and yourself or things like that. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. Assuming just Everett QM
Re: Consciousness and free will
Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit : Bruno, Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better outcomes, the entire group advances? Yes (assuming QM), thanks to the notion of normality made possible by the QM statistics. Hopefully so with the comp hyp, but strictly speaking this is not yet proved. If the worst are always proportionately opposite to the best, and the best keep improving themselves, don't they pull the worst up with them? Just a hopeful thought. But with that notion of normality, the worst should not be proportionately opposite to the best. If you decide to improve yourself, all your you will improve, except the unlucky one who will get some white rabbits on their way. Here, both comp and QM, is like classical statistic, and roughly speaking you can expect all outcomes to be possible, but with *highly* different proportion. If you decide to do a cup of coffee, in almost all histories you will drink coffee, they will be just a little infinity or little measure of worlds where the coffee will taste like tea, or where the boiling water will freeze. I tend to think that the ethics behind QM and comp are the same usual ethics of the non eliminativist materialist, except that with comp, such ethics can be grounded on a sort of general modesty principle. (They will be opportunity to come back on that modesty issue). A priori, the comp theory of Good/Bad is NOT like in Plotinus theory. Plotinus believed that if someone do something BAD, the same amount of BAD will occur to him, soon or later. He gives a curious example which is no doubt a bit shocking to our ears: he says that if a man rapes a woman then ... he will be reincarnated into a woman and be raped by a man! I think there is something true in that comment, but not if taken literally. With comp, I can speculate on common laws for heat, love and money: they could obey to similar global conservation principle together with local creation rule. But frankly this *is* speculation, and the main ethics will remain respect the others and yourself or things like that. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. Assuming just Everett QM, there is a notion of normality and classicality which can be derived from the quantum evolution. This is expalined by david Deutsch, but also the decoherence theory. So, when you take a (classical) decision you will act accordingly in the vast majority of your histories, and very few version of you will accidentally be doing the opposite. Taking into account the comp. Hyp. such decoherence has to be refined a priori, and this leads to a gallery of open problems. Both with QM without collapse, and with comp, such normality is hard to justified from the first person views when we are near death. This leads to even more complex questions. I can only say that I don't know what happens, but I do expect, some probable jump, guided by some theoretical computer science intuition. Some backtracking of experience, and renormalization of probabilities could also occur. Many-histories is not all histories, or it is all histories but with different relative weight. We can't use MW for escaping our responsibilities, I think. Bruno At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. - -~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options
Re: Consciousness and free will
m.a. and Bruno: *BETTER OUTCOME???* better for whom? better than what? Judging human? JohnM On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit : Bruno, Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better outcomes, the entire group advances? Yes (assuming QM), thanks to the notion of normality made possible by the QM statistics. Hopefully so with the comp hyp, but strictly speaking this is not yet proved. If the worst are always proportionately opposite to the best, and the best keep improving themselves, don't they pull the worst up with them? Just a hopeful thought. But with that notion of normality, the worst should not be proportionately opposite to the best. If you decide to improve yourself, all your you will improve, except the unlucky one who will get some white rabbits on their way. Here, both comp and QM, is like classical statistic, and roughly speaking you can expect all outcomes to be possible, but with *highly* different proportion. If you decide to do a cup of coffee, in almost all histories you will drink coffee, they will be just a little infinity or little measure of worlds where the coffee will taste like tea, or where the boiling water will freeze. I tend to think that the ethics behind QM and comp are the same usual ethics of the non eliminativist materialist, except that with comp, such ethics can be grounded on a sort of general modesty principle. (They will be opportunity to come back on that modesty issue). A priori, the comp theory of Good/Bad is NOT like in Plotinus theory. Plotinus believed that if someone do something BAD, the same amount of BAD will occur to him, soon or later. He gives a curious example which is no doubt a bit shocking to our ears: he says that if a man rapes a woman then ... he will be reincarnated into a woman and be raped by a man! I think there is something true in that comment, but not if taken literally. With comp, I can speculate on common laws for heat, love and money: they could obey to similar global conservation principle together with local creation rule. But frankly this *is* speculation, and the main ethics will remain respect the others and yourself or things like that. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. Assuming just Everett QM, there is a notion of normality and classicality which can be derived from the quantum evolution. This is expalined by david Deutsch, but also the decoherence theory. So, when you take a (classical) decision you will act accordingly in the vast majority of your histories, and very few version of you will accidentally be doing the opposite. Taking into account the comp. Hyp. such decoherence has to be refined a priori, and this leads to a gallery of open problems. Both with QM without collapse, and with comp, such normality is hard to justified from the first person views when we are near death. This leads to even more complex questions. I can only say that I don't know what happens, but I do expect, some probable jump, guided by some theoretical computer science intuition. Some backtracking of experience, and renormalization of probabilities could also occur. Many-histories is not all histories, or it is all histories but with different relative weight. We can't use MW for escaping our responsibilities, I think. Bruno At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. - -~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Re: Consciousness and free will
On 06 Dec 2008, at 15:30, John Mikes wrote: m.a. and Bruno: BETTER OUTCOME??? better for whom? better than what? Judging human? Judging the situation or the histories you are going through, whatever you really think is better ... for you. Like it is better to drink coffee when doing coffee, in general. Better for the happiness of the machine, if you want. And we are not judging any machine, it seems to me. Bruno JohnM On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit : Bruno, Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better outcomes, the entire group advances? Yes (assuming QM), thanks to the notion of normality made possible by the QM statistics. Hopefully so with the comp hyp, but strictly speaking this is not yet proved. If the worst are always proportionately opposite to the best, and the best keep improving themselves, don't they pull the worst up with them? Just a hopeful thought. But with that notion of normality, the worst should not be proportionately opposite to the best. If you decide to improve yourself, all your you will improve, except the unlucky one who will get some white rabbits on their way. Here, both comp and QM, is like classical statistic, and roughly speaking you can expect all outcomes to be possible, but with *highly* different proportion. If you decide to do a cup of coffee, in almost all histories you will drink coffee, they will be just a little infinity or little measure of worlds where the coffee will taste like tea, or where the boiling water will freeze. I tend to think that the ethics behind QM and comp are the same usual ethics of the non eliminativist materialist, except that with comp, such ethics can be grounded on a sort of general modesty principle. (They will be opportunity to come back on that modesty issue). A priori, the comp theory of Good/Bad is NOT like in Plotinus theory. Plotinus believed that if someone do something BAD, the same amount of BAD will occur to him, soon or later. He gives a curious example which is no doubt a bit shocking to our ears: he says that if a man rapes a woman then ... he will be reincarnated into a woman and be raped by a man! I think there is something true in that comment, but not if taken literally. With comp, I can speculate on common laws for heat, love and money: they could obey to similar global conservation principle together with local creation rule. But frankly this *is* speculation, and the main ethics will remain respect the others and yourself or things like that. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. Assuming just Everett QM, there is a notion of normality and classicality which can be derived from the quantum evolution. This is expalined by david Deutsch, but also the decoherence theory. So, when you take a (classical) decision you will act accordingly in the vast majority of your histories, and very few version of you will accidentally be doing the opposite. Taking into account the comp. Hyp. such decoherence has to be refined a priori, and this leads to a gallery of open problems. Both with QM without collapse, and with comp, such normality is hard to justified from the first person views when we are near death. This leads to even more complex questions. I can only say that I don't know what happens, but I do expect, some probable jump, guided by some theoretical computer science intuition. Some backtracking of experience, and renormalization of probabilities could also occur. Many-histories is not all histories, or it is all histories but with different relative weight. We can't use MW for escaping our responsibilities, I think. Bruno At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. - -~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: Consciousness and free will
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. Assuming just Everett QM, there is a notion of normality and classicality which can be derived from the quantum evolution. This is expalined by david Deutsch, but also the decoherence theory. So, when you take a (classical) decision you will act accordingly in the vast majority of your histories, and very few version of you will accidentally be doing the opposite. Taking into account the comp. Hyp. such decoherence has to be refined a priori, and this leads to a gallery of open problems. Both with QM without collapse, and with comp, such normality is hard to justified from the first person views when we are near death. This leads to even more complex questions. I can only say that I don't know what happens, but I do expect, some probable jump, guided by some theoretical computer science intuition. Some backtracking of experience, and renormalization of probabilities could also occur. Many-histories is not all histories, or it is all histories but with different relative weight. We can't use MW for escaping our responsibilities, I think. Bruno At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. - -~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Bruno, Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better outcomes, the entire group advances? If the worst are always proportionately opposite to the best, and the best keep improving themselves, don't they pull the worst up with them? Just a hopeful thought. M.A. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. Assuming just Everett QM, there is a notion of normality and classicality which can be derived from the quantum evolution. This is expalined by david Deutsch, but also the decoherence theory. So, when you take a (classical) decision you will act accordingly in the vast majority of your histories, and very few version of you will accidentally be doing the opposite. Taking into account the comp. Hyp. such decoherence has to be refined a priori, and this leads to a gallery of open problems. Both with QM without collapse, and with comp, such normality is hard to justified from the first person views when we are near death. This leads to even more complex questions. I can only say that I don't know what happens, but I do expect, some probable jump, guided by some theoretical computer science intuition. Some backtracking of experience, and renormalization of probabilities could also occur. Many-histories is not all histories, or it is all histories but with different relative weight. We can't use MW for escaping our responsibilities, I think. Bruno At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. - -~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Bruno: I am aware of Everett's many worlds universe, which is predicted on the wavefunction not collapsing. So far, that seems to be experientally so. Not many Physicists take consciousness into account, althought there is a paper I just found today you may be interested in:http:// arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.0418v1.pdf Finally what is the computer simulating the multiverse running on? Ronald --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Ronald, Bruno, and others: I am the 'old naive commonsesicle guy' who considers 'everything' as 'everything'. Not curtailed into mathematical, physical, or other human invented topical restrictions, not even into the possible as WE think about it today. I go with Hal Ruhl in washing away the limit to nothing, since we (humanly restricted minds) cannot fathom what we cannot fathom, but it may be included into REAL(?) everything. Maybe the list-name is thought as less than that? John M On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, ronaldheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno: We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not exist yet. I would think it would be QM and General Relativity and other things we do not know. Could this program be running an evolving mathematical structure or maybe you prefer evolving block universe/multiverse? Ronald --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Bruno: We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not exist yet. I would think it would be QM and General Relativity and other things we do not know. Could this program be running an evolving mathematical structure or maybe you prefer evolving block universe/multiverse? Ronald --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Hi Ronald, (Please let me quickly say something to Abram and Jason: Abram, Jason, I will have to go. I will comment your posts tomorrow) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno: We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not exist yet. I agree. But there are interesting candidates like superstrings and loop gravity, except that they are still not taking the observer seriously enough, imo. The mind-body problem is still under the rug, and this makes them not really everything theory . I would think it would be QM and General Relativity and other things we do not know. No doubt the TOE has to mary QM and GR in some way, ... and without eliminating consciousness (the only data I can't doubt?). Could this program be running an evolving mathematical structure or maybe you prefer evolving block universe/multiverse? I think none, although strictly speaking it is an open problem. Taking the risk of looking a bit too much poetical, but for being short and being able to provide you with an image, I would say that, as a theorem of computer science, numbers dream, and sometimes share dreams. You can look at a dream as a piece of a surface. Physical realities becomes dreams sharing, built from invariant in those dreams. The surfaces glue together and create bigger surfaces, but for some reason, it is not clear if all surfaces glues sufficiently well to define an absolute physical reality on the kind needed for block multiverse. Evolving block multiverse? I am not sure, I don't know. The physical world will be a bit secondary, like the border of the ignorance of the universal machine. Thanks to Godel, Lob, Solovay (logicians who made key works among others) eventually that ignorance has a mathematical structure. Eventually this will make the computationalist theory testable (and in some sense Everett QM confirms already some weird features of the comp hyp. Everett QM is QM without collapse, I guess you know). Best, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Hi Bruno, I'm quoting your response to an older post because I have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing against myself. M.A. At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. - -~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Hi Bruno, Your reply points to deeper mysteries even as it clarifies simpler ones. You and others have noted a certain excitement in exploring the unknown and I am enjoying that prospect. M.A. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:21, M.A. wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed explanations. I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using color to differentiate (if that's ok). M.A. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote: (Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I experience Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational histories. The term universe is far too ambiguous (now). But isn't each history separated from all others by impermeable walls? Do you mean that the word universe is ambiguous or just my use of it? The word universe is ambiguous. And yes, each history is separated from all others, despite all histories are mixed in some other histories. But *you* (third person, your bodies) belongs to a continuum of histories, and although they does not interact, it changes your probabilities on your possible consistent extensions. is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall mission of implementing every possible variation. Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both histories (you seen from some third person point of view). Each histories is deterministic but, your future is uncertain. But what about the first person me? I am only conscious of one history. Perahps. It could be a question of language. If you look at an electronic orbital you could see a cloud of possible positions, accessible by position-measurement. In a sense you look (indirectly) at the many histories you are simultaneously in, a bit like you computes in many histories you are in when you are using a quantum computer. When we will accept, not only digital brain, but quantum digital brain change of language will occur. To use the correct language now could be like learning quantum field theory for doing a pizza. It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic All right. and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the program; At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. It seems like the present copy of me can envisage these decisions, but be unable to carry them out unless they are part of his deterministic history. Yes. In some case, perhaps not your's, this can be helped by doctor, shaman, yoga, regime, drugs, sports, music, etc. It is difficult. the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will, explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny, possession, halluciation etc. As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe probabilities. But isn't his problem of pride determined in some history, namely the one I experience? Sure. It depends of our parents, education, etc. You can abstract such problems away, but this need works. It depend on the short and long pasts. We have inherited of million years of family trifles, we have kept some of our reptile instincts. But we can learn, for the better or the worse. accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology), it could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control. Not very consoling when entangled with the intense immediacy and sensitivity of one's ego. Sure. Again here yoga and music and rest can help, but life can be difficult. Comp does not offer any
Re: Consciousness and free will
Hi John, Bruno, I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better. Two words, however, I picked out: 1. bifurcate I consider it a human narrowness to expect anything to split in TWO (only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'. It has unlimited varants and the choices come under the 2nd word I picked out: Doesn't amoebas split in two? Assuming Everett is correct, doesn't observers split in many when observing a superposed states? Assuming comp, am I not splitting in two, from a third person perpective in the duplication Washington-Moscow? 2. (free?) WILL The 'Free Will' is the invention of the religious trend to invoke responsibility and punishment. Or of any justice system. If not, we should substitute all jails for asylums. Perhaps we should? In 'my' position-kind even 'Will implies some personal(?) decision instead of a deterministic consequence of relations all over acting upon the observed change of the observed item. I believe that free-will is compatible with determinism (old discussion). Free will is a form of self-determinism. As for the elusive consciousness? 'my' attempt to find some generalized and widened identification for all those different things people (as is said) 'everybody knows what it is' (but many in different ways G), I ended up with the ID (first published 1992): Acknowledgement of and response to information (changes?) (considering it rather a process than only an 'awareness'.) I posted this on several lists for psych, mind, consciousness, even diverse complexities and did NOT get a refusal over the 15 years). Acceptance neither. So I thought: Si tacent, clamant (or dormiunt?) I hold one thing for sure: Ccness (whatever it may be) is NOT a 'thing' callable 'physical'. We agree on this. Best, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Hi, Bruno; you wrote (see below): Doesn't amoebas split in two? I did not expect from you to quote 1 (ONE) case that does not comply with a general statement as 'evidence', especially when this 1 case is a figmentous conclusion from the physical world's reductionist science. (- Even 78 additional cases won't do. -) Your Wash-Moscow idea is just that: a human figment to 'prove' something outrageousG Furthermore (and I may disagree in civilian justice systems: they punish crimes by order (maffia etc.) and don't by just?? wars): Or of any justice system. If not, we should substitute all jails for asylums. *Perhaps we should?* Funny you question this: a niece of mine will defend her thesis for Ph.D. next week in 'restorational judiciary': mitigating between victim and perpetrator and curing the mind of the criminal into societal compliance. She had lectures and studies in several countries. If you are interested I can send you a lecture she delivered at a Barcelona Conf. (in Eng). The dissertation is in Hungarian. * On 'free will' - I remember the old discussion, I did not agree but kept out of it. I still find the religious dominance inventing it for its power. You wrote: I believe that free-will is compatible with determinism (old discussion). Free will is a form of self-determinism. That does not make a logical sense to me: self-determinism is based on the content of one's personal experience (colored by genetic dissposition) and concerning relational input. To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self or not self: it is a consequence. * Consciousness? your agreement (We agree on this.) looks like pertinent to the last remark only, the same 'no reply' as I mentioned in my text. BTW: my definition is very close to my version of the 'Observer': a (conscious?) spectator, acknowledging (reacting to?) information (i.e. change). It all boils down to 'relations' and their inter connectedness in the totality. I wonder if your 'numbers system' includes relational differentiation, or ONLY the blank figures? If it does, it is only a language for describing the totality (and a simplified one at that). (I seek more diversified descriptions. ) Sorry for nitpicking John On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, Bruno, I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better. Two words, however, I picked out: 1. bifurcate I consider it a human narrowness to expect anything to split in TWO (only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'. It has unlimited varants and the choices come under the 2nd word I picked out: Doesn't amoebas split in two? Assuming Everett is correct, doesn't observers split in many when observing a superposed states? Assuming comp, am I not splitting in two, from a third person perpective in the duplication Washington-Moscow? 2. (free?) WILL The 'Free Will' is the invention of the religious trend to invoke responsibility and punishment. Or of any justice system. If not, we should substitute all jails for asylums. Perhaps we should? In 'my' position-kind even 'Will implies some personal(?) decision instead of a deterministic consequence of relations all over acting upon the observed change of the observed item. I believe that free-will is compatible with determinism (old discussion). Free will is a form of self-determinism. As for the elusive consciousness? 'my' attempt to find some generalized and widened identification for all those different things people (as is said) 'everybody knows what it is' (but many in different ways G), I ended up with the ID (first published 1992): Acknowledgement of and response to information (changes?) (considering it rather a process than only an 'awareness'.) I posted this on several lists for psych, mind, consciousness, even diverse complexities and did NOT get a refusal over the 15 years). Acceptance neither. So I thought: Si tacent, clamant (or dormiunt?) I hold one thing for sure: Ccness (whatever it may be) is NOT a 'thing' callable 'physical'. We agree on this. Best, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
On 01 Dec 2008, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote: That does not make a logical sense to me: self-determinism is based on the content of one's personal experience (colored by genetic dissposition) and concerning relational input. To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self or not self: it is a consequence. Then we should make all criminals free, because they all just obeys Schroedinger equation. (Free)-will exists because we cannot known all our determinations, and because we know that we cannot know our determinations, I would say. I wonder if your 'numbers system' includes relational differentiation, or ONLY the blank figures? If it does, it is only a language for describing the totality (and a simplified one at that). (I seek more diversified descriptions. ) You seem a bit unfair. Even in the case of the theology of the ideally correct universal machine there will be 8 very different sort of persons points of view, and I have never dare to say to the list that the four last one really multiplies into infinity. All this potential diversity exists before the machine actually live any experience. You are again accusing me of reductionism by using what I'm afraid looks a bit like a reductionist conception of machines and numbers. Good luck for your niece, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
This business of histories not interacting... does the Bell Inequality have some bearing here? My intuition is that the universe behaves classically while it's linked to consciousness - quantum interference is fine as long as it leaves no 'split-states' hanging around to be observed/otherwise-directly-affecting-consciousness. (Or, rephrasing, quantum behaviour can be observed after-the-fact, but interacting with split-states splits consciousness and maybe also produces nonconscious split-minds.) The short version: the universe is fully quantum whenever we aren't looking at it. 2008/12/1 Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:21, M.A. wrote: *Bruno,* * Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed explanations. I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using color to differentiate (if that's ok). M.A.* - Original Message - *From:* Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 PM *Subject:* Re: Consciousness and free will On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote: *(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I experience* Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational histories. The term universe is far too ambiguous (now). *But isn't each history separated from all others by impermeable walls? Do you mean that the word universe is ambiguous or just my use of it?* The word universe is ambiguous. And yes, each history is separated from all others, despite all histories are mixed in some other histories. But *you* (third person, your bodies) belongs to a continuum of histories, and although they does not interact, it changes your probabilities on your possible consistent extensions. *is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall mission of implementing every possible variation.* Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both histories (you seen from some third person point of view). Each histories is deterministic but, your future is uncertain. *But what about the first person me? I am only conscious of one history.* Perahps. It could be a question of language. If you look at an electronic orbital you could see a cloud of possible positions, accessible by position-measurement. In a sense you look (indirectly) at the many histories you are simultaneously in, a bit like you computes in many histories you are in when you are using a quantum computer. When we will accept, not only digital brain, but quantum digital brain change of language will occur. To use the correct language now could be like learning quantum field theory for doing a pizza. *It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic* All right. *and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the program;* At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. *It seems like the present copy of me can envisage these decisions, but be unable to carry them out unless they are part of his deterministic history.* Yes. In some case, perhaps not your's, this can be helped by doctor, shaman, yoga, regime, drugs, sports, music, etc. It is difficult. *the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will, explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny, possession, halluciation etc.* As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe probabilities. *But isn't his problem of pride determined in some history, namely the one I experience?* Sure. It depends of our parents, education, etc. You can abstract such problems away, but this need works. It depend on the short and long pasts. We have inherited of million years of family trifles, we have kept some of our reptile instincts. But we can learn, for the better or the worse. *accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology),* it could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control. *Not very consoling when entangled with the intense immediacy and sensitivity of one's ego
Re: Consciousness and free will
Dear Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self or not self: it is a consequence. Then we should make all criminals free, because they all just obeys Schroedinger equation. (Free)-will exists because we cannot known all No of course not. We have to talk at different levels. When we talk about metaphysics, we see that there is no such thing as free will. When we talk about human society, punishment (prison; better: institution for therapy - bring back into society, no retribution) is _social signalling_ - bad behaviour is not wanted, not tolerated, society will react (if it wouldn't one would change deterministic facts for future generations). To translate it back into the metaphysical view: in Platonia, structures where order is enforced so that more OMs can live happy lives have higher measure. (Ok I am very optimistic now but I am in the mood; share the dream for a moment *grin*) 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Hello M.A., * Mine dwells on bad actions. (Jewish guilt perhaps.) * Maybe this post is of interest for you? (it is good) http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/tsuyoku_naritai.html The whole of Nietzsche's philosophy is a monument dedicated to gainsay that error. *Yet most of his personal life seems to affirm it.* I think his life was tragic because he had great insights (in a way, he was a mystic - an intellectual mystic if you like) - and nobody to talk to. I think loneliness is what drove him crazy in the end. And he was ahead of his times. Only now is philosophy being begun to be understood (anglo-american interest has flared up considerably in the last couple of years). Best Wishes, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
Bruno, I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better. Two words, however, I picked out: *1. bifurcate* I consider it a human narrowness to expect anything *to split in TWO*(only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'. It has unlimited varants and the choices come under the 2nd word I picked out: *2. (free?) WILL* The *'Free Will'* is the invention of the religious trend to invoke responsibility and punishment. In 'my' position-kind even 'Will implies some personal(?) decision instead of a deterministic *consequence of relations all over* acting upon the observed change of the observed item. As for the elusive *consciousness?* 'my' attempt to find some generalized and widened identification for all those different things people (as is said)* 'everybody knows what it is'*(but many in *different ways* G), I ended up with the ID (first published 1992): *Acknowledgement of and response * *to information (changes?)* (considering it rather a process than only an 'awareness'.) I posted this on several lists for psych, mind, consciousness, even diverse complexities and did NOT get a refusal over the 15 years). Acceptance neither. So I thought: Si tacent, clamant (or dormiunt?) I hold one thing for sure: Ccness (whatever it may be) is NOT a 'thing' callable 'physical'. (I feel M.A. tacitly assigns to universe,the program, or whatever some god-like authoritative decisionmaking role). John M * * On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote: *(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I experience* Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational histories. The term universe is far too ambiguous (now). *is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall mission of implementing every possible variation.* Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both histories (you seen from some third person point of view). Each histories is deterministic but, your future is uncertain. *It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic * All right. *and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the program;* At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. * thus each program that contains a thinking entity is in a schizophrenic condition. * Come on! *This is because consciousness--which is part of the program--is capable of judging the actions of the program. When the program acts in a way approved by it, * by it? *the thinker is encouraged to believe that its free will produced the action. * ? *But when the program acts in a manner repugnant to it,* to who? *the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will, explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny, possession, halluciation etc. * As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe probabilities. *So every consciousness, bearing burdensome memories of repugnant actions, must either surrender the possibility of free will (fatalism),* Wrongly, I would say. *accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology), * it could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control. Note also that it is not really the program or the machine who thinks, but the people vehiculated trough that machine computation relatively to its most probable (and local) computational histories. *or theorize an inaccessible part of itself that is able to override its purposes (Freud). * That is not entirely meaningless imo. *All of which implies a schism between consciousness and one of the following: the program, the universe or itself.* Here I agree. Universal machine are born to experience such a schism. We can come back on this. In its purer form it is a consequence of incompleteness. All universal machine hides a mystery to themselves, and more the machine learn, more that mystery is bigger. (This is related to the gap between G and G*, for those who reminds previous
Re: Consciousness and free will
Bruno, Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed explanations. I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using color to differentiate (if that's ok). M.A. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote: (Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I experience Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational histories. The term universe is far too ambiguous (now). But isn't each history separated from all others by impermeable walls? Do you mean that the word universe is ambiguous or just my use of it? is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall mission of implementing every possible variation. Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both histories (you seen from some third person point of view). Each histories is deterministic but, your future is uncertain. But what about the first person me? I am only conscious of one history. It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic All right. and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the program; At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. It seems like the present copy of me can envisage these decisions, but be unable to carry them out unless they are part of his deterministic history. thus each program that contains a thinking entity is in a schizophrenic condition. Come on! You agree to the presense of schism below. Is it the connotation of schizophrenic that you don't like? This is because consciousness--which is part of the program--is capable of judging the actions of the program. When the program acts in a way approved by it, by it? Sorry. It means consciousness in this and the following paragraphs. the thinker is encouraged to believe that his will produced the action. ? But when the program acts in a manner repugnant to it, to who? (The conscious observer.) the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will, explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny, possession, halluciation etc. As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe probabilities. But isn't his problem of pride determined in some history, namely the one I experience? So every consciousness, bearing burdensome memories of repugnant actions, must either surrender the possibility of free will (fatalism), Wrongly, I would say. accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology), it could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control. Not very consoling when entangled with the intense immediacy and sensitivity of one's ego. Note also that it is not really the program or the machine who thinks, but the people vehiculated trough that machine computation relatively to its most probable (and local) computational histories. But I think as an individual, not as a group. or theorize an inaccessible part of itself that is able to override its purposes (Freud). That is not entirely meaningless imo. All of which implies a schism between consciousness and one of the following: the program, the universe or itself. Here I agree. Universal machine are born to experience such a schism. We can come back on this. In its purer form it is a consequence of incompleteness. All universal machine hides a mystery to themselves, and more the machine learn, more that mystery is bigger. (This is related to the gap between G and G*, for those who reminds previous explanations). I find this most profound. I'd be interested to know to what extent my thinking about this question agrees with or goes against the present discussion
Re: Consciousness and free will
On 01/12/2008, at 6:21 AM, M.A. wrote: Is it the connotation of schizophrenic that you don't like? The term schizophrenic is an incredibly misused/misunderstood adjective. It specifically DOES NOT mean multiple personality (disorder) which is the common coin usage (ie not in a medico- diagnostic context) Please help out by using some other word or term: perhaps split existence or multiple instantiation which conveys graphically what you mean. Perhaps there is another single word. From the Wikipedia article on Schizophrenia: The word schizophrenia—which translates roughly as splitting of the mind and comes from the Greek roots schizein(σχίζειν, to split) and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, mind)[187]—was coined by Eugen Bleuler in 1908 and was intended to describe the separation of function between personality, thinking, memory, and perception. Bleuler described the main symptoms as 4 A's: flattened Affect, Autism, impaired Association of ideas and Ambivalence.[188] Bleuler realized that the illness was not a dementia as some of his patients improved rather than deteriorated and hence proposed the term schizophrenia instead. The term schizophrenia is commonly misunderstood to mean that affected persons have a split personality. Although some people diagnosed with schizophrenia may hear voices and may experience the voices as distinct personalities, schizophrenia does not involve a person changing among distinct multiple personalities. The confusion arises in part due to the meaning of Bleuler's term schizophrenia (literally split or shattered mind). The first known misuse of the term to mean split personality was in an article by the poet T. S. Eliot in 1933.[189] Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness and free will
On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote: (Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I experience Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational histories. The term universe is far too ambiguous (now). is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall mission of implementing every possible variation. Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both histories (you seen from some third person point of view). Each histories is deterministic but, your future is uncertain. It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic All right. and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the program; At some point I could defined consciousness as the state of (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, which can themselves augment your probability of survival. thus each program that contains a thinking entity is in a schizophrenic condition. Come on! This is because consciousness--which is part of the program--is capable of judging the actions of the program. When the program acts in a way approved by it, by it? the thinker is encouraged to believe that its free will produced the action. ? But when the program acts in a manner repugnant to it, to who? the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will, explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny, possession, halluciation etc. As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe probabilities. So every consciousness, bearing burdensome memories of repugnant actions, must either surrender the possibility of free will (fatalism), Wrongly, I would say. accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology), it could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control. Note also that it is not really the program or the machine who thinks, but the people vehiculated trough that machine computation relatively to its most probable (and local) computational histories. or theorize an inaccessible part of itself that is able to override its purposes (Freud). That is not entirely meaningless imo. All of which implies a schism between consciousness and one of the following: the program, the universe or itself. Here I agree. Universal machine are born to experience such a schism. We can come back on this. In its purer form it is a consequence of incompleteness. All universal machine hides a mystery to themselves, and more the machine learn, more that mystery is bigger. (This is related to the gap between G and G*, for those who reminds previous explanations). I'd be interested to know to what extent my thinking about this question agrees with or goes against the present discussion. m .a. I made a try. Interesting post. Tell me if you are ok with it. (I believe in free will, but I would prefer to say simply just will. Free-will is a bit of an oxymoron). 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
