Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Any person's experience is obtained by differentiating - selecting something from that nothing. The relationship between this zero information object, and arithmetical platonia is a bit unclear, but I would say that anything constructible (Sigma_1) must be extractable from the zero information object. OK then. But this means you are an arithmetical realist, and that an external reality exist, for example your strings, or your set of strings, and I am still more confused by your saying there is not even an immaterial external reality, which would be solipsism with a revenge. Bruno The set of all strings is the same object, regardless of interpretation, regardless of alphabet, and is the only object to have zero information. It is a good candidate for the Everything, but curiously it has the properties of Nothing. One simply cannot observe this zero information object, one can only observe somethings, descriptions in my terminology. Anything in Sigma_1 is such a something. Anything you can possibly to convey to me about any mathematical object must also be extractable. However, there are possibly mathematical things not within the zero information objects, but they are inherently noncommunicable (shades of you G*\G perhaps?). I think all that I say is that external reality is Nothing. It is not quite the same as saying there is no external reality, but not far off. But solipsism is really about other minds, in any case, so its hardly solipsism. Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... It is really the key to understand that if my 3-person I is a machine, then the I, (the 1-person I) is not! This can be used to explain why the 1-person is solipsist, although the 1-person does not need to be doctrinaire about that (fortunately enough). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ I think this comment is most interesting, and perhaps you are finally laying to rest my confusion. By 3-person, we really mean my extended brain, which is quantum mechanically dstributed across the Multiverse (see previous comments to Stathis et al.) By 1-person, we mean the projection of ourselves that we are (self-) aware of. This includes that lump of grey porridge we call a brain. The 3 person could be something relatively complex like a computer, but it could just as easily be Stathis's rock actually. What matters is the 1-person, which is inherently non-computable. If I can just see why the anthropic principle follows in an obvious way from this, I'll be even happier! Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
True, I may go a step further: In those terms as I defined an 'earlier solipsism' in another post, there is NO real solipsist. Maybe in the nuthouse. Or on his way to one. Game-playing is human and many fall into substituting their game for the real world. From Hitler to a nun. I was not thinking on the intermittent solips as pointed to by some (reasonable) list-colleagues. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:59 PM Subject: RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test John, Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the impression that everything is a construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order to indulge in fiction or computer games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the greatest and most perfect of games. I think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start to believe that the game is reality. Maybe that's why there aren't that many of them around. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:51:28 -0400 Stathis: wouod a real solipsist even talk to you? John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruno Marchal everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:21 PM Subject: RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test Bruno Marchal writes: About solipsism I am not sure why you introduce the subject. It seems to me nobody defend it in the list. Is anyone out there really a solipsist? Has anyone ever met or talked to a real solipsist? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491 1fb2b2e6d -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 09/20/06 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: John, Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the impression that everything is a construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order to indulge in fiction or computer games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the greatest and most perfect of games. I think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start to believe that the game is reality. And that would make a difference how? Brent Meeker It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would behave exactly as they do behave, most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any consideration at all, the rest deciding that although it is a theoretical possibility, there is no practical purpose served by worrying about it. Perhaps mad is not the right word, implying as it does dysfunction, although sometimes we use the term happily mad. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
But a solipsist would appear mad in his self-generated world at the very point where he sees through his delusion. The tragedy is that he could never prove solipsism true even if it were true, and it would be irrational to believe it true even if it were true. Stathis Papaioannou True, I may go a step further: In those terms as I defined an 'earlier solipsism' in another post, there is NO real solipsist. Maybe in the nuthouse. Or on his way to one. Game-playing is human and many fall into substituting their game for the real world. From Hitler to a nun. I was not thinking on the intermittent solips as pointed to by some (reasonable) list-colleagues. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:59 PM Subject: RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test John, Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the impression that everything is a construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order to indulge in fiction or computer games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the greatest and most perfect of games. I think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start to believe that the game is reality. Maybe that's why there aren't that many of them around. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:51:28 -0400 Stathis: wouod a real solipsist even talk to you? John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruno Marchal everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:21 PM Subject: RE: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test Bruno Marchal writes: About solipsism I am not sure why you introduce the subject. It seems to me nobody defend it in the list. Is anyone out there really a solipsist? Has anyone ever met or talked to a real solipsist? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491 1fb2b2e6d -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 09/20/06 _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Le 22-sept.-06, à 19:10, Russell Standish a écrit : On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Any person's experience is obtained by differentiating - selecting something from that nothing. The relationship between this zero information object, and arithmetical platonia is a bit unclear, but I would say that anything constructible (Sigma_1) must be extractable from the zero information object. OK then. But this means you are an arithmetical realist, and that an external reality exist, for example your strings, or your set of strings, and I am still more confused by your saying there is not even an immaterial external reality, which would be solipsism with a revenge. Bruno The set of all strings is the same object, regardless of interpretation, regardless of alphabet, and is the only object to have zero information. It is a good candidate for the Everything, but curiously it has the properties of Nothing. Please allows me at this stage to be the most precise as possible. From a logical point of view, your theory of Nothing is equivalent to Q1 + Q2 + Q3. It is a very weaker subtheory of RA. It is not sigma1 complete, you don't get the the UTM, nor all partial recursive functions FI or all r.e. set Wi. Actually you cannot recover addition and multiplication. But it is neither nothing. It is the natural numbers without addition and multiplication, the countable order, + non standard models. Or you have an implicit second order axiom in mind perhaps, but then you need to express it; and then you have a much richer ontology than the one expressed through RA. One simply cannot observe this zero information object, one can only observe somethings, descriptions in my terminology. Anything in Sigma_1 is such a something. Sigma_1 is far richer. There are many sigma_1 true arithmetical sentences (provable by RA, PA, ZF, ...) not provable in your system. Anything you can possibly to convey to me about any mathematical object must also be extractable. Again, strictly speaking this is not true. (Unless your implicit axioms obviously ...) However, there are possibly mathematical things not within the zero information objects, but they are inherently noncommunicable (shades of you G*\G perhaps?). You are very well below. You cannot even prove the existence of a prime number in your theory. I think all that I say is that external reality is Nothing. No. Even your very weak theory as infinite models, and models of all cardinality. But it has no finite models, still less the empty model (which logicians avoid). It is not quite the same as saying there is no external reality, but not far off. This is too ambiguous. And too much sounding solipsistic. But solipsism is really about other minds, in any case, so its hardly solipsism. Which again show the external reality is very rich, but your ontic theory cannot prove the most elementary thing about it. I guess you are using some implicit supplementary axiom. 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Le 22-sept.-06, à 19:18, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
It is really the key to understand that if my 3-person I is a machine,
then the I, (the 1-person I) is not! This can be used to explain why
the 1-person is solipsist, although the 1-person does not need to be
doctrinaire about that (fortunately enough).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
I think this comment is most interesting, and perhaps you are finally
laying to rest my confusion. By 3-person, we really mean my extended
brain, which is quantum mechanically dstributed across the Multiverse
(see previous comments to Stathis et al.)
Now I am completely confused. here you seem to assume the quantum
multiverse like if you were abandoning your own theory.
You are free to redefine the term I am using, but I thought have making
clear that the 3-person is just the finite code the doctor is using to
build a copy of yourself like in the duplication WM. The 3-person
description is just a finite natural number, the one which at least you
can already prove the existence in your theory (which I identify to Q1
Q2 Q3).
I recall for this other in french: Q1 says that zero is not a
successor of any number = for all x NOT(0 = s(x)). Q2 says that the
successor operation is injective, i.e. if for all x and y, if x is
equal to y, then s(x) = s(y). Q3 says that all numbers are successor,
except 0, i.e. for all x, if x is different from zero then there is a y
such x = s(y).
The intended (standard) model is the mathematical structure N = {0,
s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...} = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...}, but without
means for adding and multiplying the numbers.
By 1-person, we mean the
projection of ourselves that we are (self-) aware of. This includes
that lump of grey porridge we call a brain.
This would be the first person plural (intelligible matter).
The 3 person could be something relatively complex like a computer,
but it could just as easily be Stathis's rock actually. What matters
is the 1-person, which is inherently non-computable.
... from its own point of view! Also I think all hypostases matters
If I can just see why the anthropic principle follows in an obvious way
from this, I'll be even happier!
It seems to me that comp assumes at the start a form of turing-tropic
or universal-tropic (with Church Thesis) principle.
From it we can derive all hypostases (n-person point of view,
terrestrial (G viewed) or divine (G* viewed)) including the fourth one
which should give physics, making comp testable.
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-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: John, Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the impression that everything is a construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order to indulge in fiction or computer games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the greatest and most perfect of games. I think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start to believe that the game is reality. And that would make a difference how? Brent Meeker It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would behave exactly as they do behave, most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any consideration at all, the rest deciding that although it is a theoretical possibility, there is no practical purpose served by worrying about it. Their explanation, if they have any, as to why they behave as they do would be peppered with as ifs. Solipisism is for people who prefer certainty to understanding. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: John, Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all under the impression that everything is a construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in order to indulge in fiction or computer games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the greatest and most perfect of games. I think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start to believe that the game is reality. And that would make a difference how? Brent Meeker It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would behave exactly as they do behave, most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any consideration at all, the rest deciding that although it is a theoretical possibility, there is no practical purpose served by worrying about it. Their explanation, if they have any, as to why they behave as they do would be peppered with as ifs. Solipisism is for people who prefer certainty to understanding. COLIN HALES: Yay! someone 'got' my little dialogue! The point is that scientists are actually ALL tacit solipsists. The only way a solipsist can exist is to outwardly agree with the massive confabulation they appear to inhabit whilst inwardly maintaining the only 'real truth'. There's no external reality...It's not real!...so being duplicitous is OK. But to go on being a tacit solipsist affirmed by inaction: not admitting consciouness itself of actually caused by something...is equivalent to an inward belief of Bishop Berkeley-esque magical intervention on a massive scale without actually realising it. The whole delusion is maintained by a belief in an 'objective-view' that makes it seem like we're directly accessing an external world when we are not - it's all mediated by MIND, which we deny by not admitting it to be evidence of anything and around we go the whole picture is self consistent and inherently deluded and ultimately not honest. This is the state of science the last 2 paragraphs of the latest version of my little monologue are as follows: where: CASE (a) world: Virtual solipsist world. In this world I accept my mind as conclusive proof supporting continued fervent adherence to the belief in a magical fabricator. CASE (b) world: In this world I let a real external world be responsible for all phenomenal mirrors. Concsiousness is held as proof of a separately described underlying natural world, totally compatible with normally traditional empirical science of appearances _within_ consciousness. If I am right to be a solipsist scientist I live in the universe of the magical fabricator, forced to play a pretend life ‘as-if’ there is a real external world with fictitious scientific colleagues, all doing the same thing. What is the reality of my life as a scientist telling me? I look around myself and what do I see universal evidence of? The world I actually live in is world (a). This evidence acts in support of my solipsism. No scientist anywhere has, for any reason other than accidentally, ever looked at systems producing worlds with scientists in them complete with minds inside it, built of it. The world I actually live in is the world of the 'as-if' ficticious objective view where scientist believe without justification that they are literally describing the natural world, and not how it appears to them. Indeed when someone tries to describe an underlying world they the scientific world snaps back, declares the attempt irrelevant, empirically unsupportable and therefore unscientific metaphysicsconsistent with an implicit outward methodological denial of mind. But if I am wrong to be a solipsist, then the evidence paints a very odd picture of science. In this bizarre world, ‘objective’ scientists outwardly all act ‘as-if’ an external world exists yet scientists are actually virtual solipsists outwardly acting ‘as-if’ there is no such thing as mind whilst being totally reliant on their mind to do science and also unaware that is the case. And, like me, being in methodological denial of their own mind, are tacitly affirming belief in a magical fabricator through a cultural omission of paying due attention to reviewing their own scientific evidence system. Scientists in this world will go on forever correlating appearances within their denied phenomenal mirrors and never get to do science on phenomenal mirrors. Which one to choose? Perhaps I’ll stay where the fictitious money is… in the land of the virtual magical fabricator…and keep quiet. == I'm done with yet another paper. This ..place... I have reached in depicting science I have reached from so many different perspectives now it's almost mundane... So many I don't know where to submit them any more! .each different approach results in the same basic conclusion science is structurally flawed and
