Re: A must read paper
On 06 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness Willard L. Miranker, Gregg J. Zuckerman (Submitted on 23 Oct 2008) We employ the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms that characterize sets as mathematical primitives. The Anti-foundation Axiom plays a significant role in our development, since among other of its features, its replacement for the Axiom of Foundation in the Zermelo- Fraenkel Axioms motivates Platonic interpretations. These interpretations also depend on such allied notions for sets as pictures, graphs, decorations, labelings and various mappings that we use. A syntax and semantics of operators acting on sets is developed. Such features enable construction of a theory of non-well- founded sets that we use to frame mathematical foundations of consciousness. To do this we introduce a supplementary axiomatic system that characterizes experience and consciousness as primitives. The new axioms proceed through characterization of so- called consciousness operators. The Russell operator plays a central role and is shown to be one example of a consciousness operator. Neural networks supply striking examples of non-well-founded graphs the decorations of which generate associated sets, each with a Platonic aspect. Employing our foundations, we show how the supervening of consciousness on its neural correlates in the brain enables the framing of a theory of consciousness by applying appropriate consciousness operators to the generated sets in question. This is part of what I have been assuming form the beginning of my conversation with Bruno so many moons ago. Its nice to see its independent discovery. As the cow-boy guessed right this is assuming too much, both for the formalism used (which is OK), and the ontology, so it uses implicitly non-comp hypothesis, which is less OK, as comp is also assumed implicitly. IT is not uninteresting for possible progress, but it is unaware that matter as to be explained by statistics on computations seen from inside. The role of Russell operator is played by the Kleene second recursion theorem, which encapsulates the non foundation well enough. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@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: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno Hi Bruno, Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, because comp, as currently formulated What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism (yes doctor, + Church thesis). only understands the other aspect as a body problem. That's the result. I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy; ? they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an infinite number of instances of a body. You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. This is not entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p- indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons. ? If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any relations beyond itself? Trivial? Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp already. ? Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true and mutually non-contradictory? ? The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs semantics (models). 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno Hi Bruno, Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, because comp, as currently formulated What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism (yes doctor, + Church thesis). Hi Bruno, I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to appeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build your hypostaces, no? only understands the other aspect as a body problem. That's the result. Right. Not the singular form! I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy; ? They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many minds. they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an infinite number of instances of a body. You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. Yes. This is not entirely trivial to prove. Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative incarnations exists? You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations. Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality of minds? The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons. ? If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any relations beyond itself? Trivial? I misread your original sentence. Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp already. ? Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a conspiracy of numbers? Are you talking literally about numbers Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true and mutually non-contradictory? ? The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs semantics (models). Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the signified http://books.google.com/books?id=8oPAcxDOL0ICpg=PA59lpg=PA59dq=%22problem+of+the+signified%22+semiotic+theorysource=blots=OCjSwCjcVSsig=s9s6nS-AVew_BQ5OdnhEKJs5O-Ahl=ensa=Xei=o-JvUPi-BoOw8ASV4oDQDgved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepageq=%22problem%20of%20the%20signified%22%20semiotic%20theoryf=false or meaning in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas of Platonism... This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is nice, not sure if you known Spanish Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno Hi Bruno, Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, because comp, as currently formulated What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism (yes doctor, + Church thesis). Hi Bruno, I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to appeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build your hypostaces, no? No. It is contained in Church thesis. Church thesis assumed elementary arithmetic (and thus the Sigma_1, etc.). only understands the other aspect as a body problem. That's the result. Right. Not the singular form! Well it is a sequence of result. 1p-indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, reduction of the mind-body problem to an arithmetical body problem, theory of quanta as part of a theory of qualia, etc. Just read the papers, as my answer can only point on what has already be done. I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy; ? They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many minds. The assumption have been made clear. None of what you say is assumed. they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an infinite number of instances of a body. You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. Yes. This is not entirely trivial to prove. Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist. ? You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative incarnations exists? It is an elementary consequence of comp. All the existence of universal numbers is a consequence of arithmetical truth. (Of course all arithmetical theory will miss some of such existence, but they still exist in arithmetical truth which is beyond all theories). You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations. ? Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality of minds? See my answer to Clark. I have already explain this. The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons. ? If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any relations beyond itself? Trivial? I misread your original sentence. OK. Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp already. ? Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a conspiracy of numbers? Why? Not at all. Are you talking literally about numbers Yes. 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... With the laws x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x And nothing else (except for some logic sugar), and the comp assumption. Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true and mutually non-contradictory? ? The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs semantics (models). Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the signified or meaning in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas of Platonism... This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is nice, not sure if you known Spanish Make your point, please. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 05 Oct 2012, at 18:58, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.' You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science can't provide a good answer to that, but depending on exactly what you mean by nothing it can give some pretty good half answers, and at least it can explain why there is a lot rather than very little. Religion can't even give half answers, not to anything. I'm not sure what you mean by Science and Religion, but the comp theology does provide the best answer we can hope to the question why there is something instead of nothing. It answers also why things seem locally dual (with mind/qualia, and matter/quanta). Well the details shows it octal instead of dual, but let us not be too technical. Comp explains why we have to postulate something Turing universal. It explains why we cannot derive its existence from anything less, so we have to at least postulate that. It explains also that matter and consciousness are independent of the choice of that universal system--- I use elementary arithmetic to fix the thing. From that Turing universal assumption, the origin of matter is conceptually explained by the first person indeterminacy applied to all computations, and the distinction between quanta and qualia is a simple derivation from the self-reference logics. See Sane2004 for more. This is testable. It is a theology as I define the theology of a machine by the set of all true propositions about that machine, including true but unprovable proposition by the machine, like those corresponding in self-consistency bet, or in the comp technological reincarnation possibility. (Then, the computer science math shows that the big picture is closer to Pythagorus, Plato and Plotinus than to Aristotelian metaphysical naturalism.) 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Evolution outshines reason by far
On 06 Oct 2012, at 04:55, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:59:11PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness? THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness. Brent Dennett's pandemonium theory would seem to be like that. I don't think Dennett contemplated sexual reproduction of ideas. That's irrelevant. Plenty of biological life reproduce asexually. This is an open problem to me. Even bacteria exchange genetic materials, and even bacteria which don't practice sex, get their genetic material exchanged through virus. And I don't know if Dennett contemplated sexual reproduction of ideas, but I like to see dialog and exchange of ideas as a form of sexual reproduction, even if it is more sophisticated than crossing over, mutation, or typical low level exploitation of code. Of course, there must be differences in the details between conscious thought and biological evolution - for example, thought may well be Lamarckian in character (like cultural evolution). The 'natural selection' that acts on ideas is mainly consilience with other ideas that are already occupying brain resources. I'm not convinced one way or other by this. I suspect we still don't know enough to say. Nevertheless, in the pandemonium model, there is a selection process of some sort going on. I agree. In arithmetic too. And consciousness is the main selector there. It makes physics evolving like biology, except that the context is a logico-arithmetical setting, instead of a space-time. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Evolution outshines reason by far
On 06 Oct 2012, at 06:04, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Dear john: 2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote: Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees! First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of the bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago I know, that's why I said macroscopic. It's easy to make if the wheel is microscopic because nutriments can just diffuse in and waste products diffuse out; but as parts get bigger the volume increases by the cube of the radius but the surface area only increases by the square, so when things get big diffusion just isn't good enough. Evolution never figured out how to do better and make a wheel large enough to see, but people did. I explained in a post above why evolution does not select weels. An autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are not. This is a neat consequence of the need of repairability. No autonomous robot with weels can work for long time without supoort.. This is explained in detail somewhere above. I can imagine a design in which wheels are connected to the circulatory system just as some vehicles are built with hydraulic motors in their wheels. Or the wheels might be separate organisms in a symbiotic relation. Those are possible - but it's too hard to get there from here. So you make the point yourself, evolution is constrained in ways that rational design is not. Do we know that imagination doesn't use an evolutionary process (behind the scenes) to come up with new ideas? Could it be that our brains use evolutionary techniques, combining different things we know in random ways and running internal testing and selection of those ideas, before they bubble up into an Ah-Ha moment that we become conscious of? Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness? THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness. The only known implementations of artificial creativity involved genetic programming. In fact, this computer used such techniques to invented patent-worthy designs: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.4146 When I try to conceive of how creativity works, it is hard for me to to imagine it could be anything other than random permutation and cross pollination of existing ideas, which must then be evaluated and the nonsensical ones pruned. New (good) ideas do not fall from the sky, nor are they directly implied by the existing set of ideas. It seems then that the process involved is to generate a bunch of new ideas (using methods similar to the tools of evolution works), and then apply selection criteria to determine which are the good ones and which are the useless ones. This strikes me as disingenously stretching meaning to fit an argument. Yes, random variation and recombination of ideas and selection according to some values is probably how creativity works. But do you really think that shows Evolution outshines reason? I was only making the point that reason may itself use the same techniques evolution does. Aren't you overlooking the fact that reason does all this in imagination, symbolically, not by reproducing and competing for resources and suffering and dying? Before there were minds to experience all the suffering and dying, you might say that evolution was equally symbolic. That is, the molecular interactions in the biosphere held a similar role to the flurry of ideas in a reasoning mind. Being able to develop ideas quickly and without whole generations having to suffer and die is a great improvement to the process, but it is an improvement natural selection (not we) made. Biological evolution is now largely inconsequential compared to the evolution of technology and ideas. But the trends in technology and ideas are still evolutionary. Reason may be able to make longer strides than was possible with mutation of DNA molecules, but the products of reason are still very much subject to the same evolutionary forces: ideas must reproduce (spread), and compete to survive, or risk extinction. I don't see that reason can be said to outshine evolution since they seem to be inseparable. Reason is a product and tool of evolution (just as DNA is). Reason itself may even use evolutionary
(w)holes in mind from matter
Hi lennartn Thanks, LN, I ordered a copy. Stephen might be insterested in looking at the table of contents at amazon , it has a chapter on (w)holes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: lennartn Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 11:01:47 Subject: Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice videodiscussingthe dual aspect theory I recommend: Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter by Terrence Deacon, a professor of neuroscience and anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley LN On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:33:53 -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, and have other sources besides that. What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is such a thing. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, I recommend the book Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. Richard On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Many thanks, Stephan ! I should have known it before, but double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories of mind aren't afraid of using the word subjectivity. Now all they have to do is find out who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity ! Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory
Hi Bruno Marchal I understand that comp does not include subjectivity, but that's just explicitly. Perhaps something can be made of the results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm. That would be a numerical caclulation. Could you be wrong ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:15, Richard Ruquist wrote: Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, I recommend the book Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. Richard On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Many thanks, Stephan ! I should have known it before, but double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories of mind aren't afraid of using the word subjectivity. Now all they have to do is find out who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity ! Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 . -- 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 . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@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. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Secondness---Maxwell's demon in the mind making sense (structure) of raw experience (entropy)
Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's called Secondness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 11:34:19 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, and have other sources besides that. What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is such a thing. Mind emerges from numbers (or from the combinators, etc.). Matter emerge from mind. Comp explains completely why it looks the contrary locally. Comp might be false, but as matter emerges from mind in a precise way, comp (I survive through machine substitution at some level) is made refutable. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, I recommend the book Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. Richard On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Many thanks, Stephan ! I should have known it before, but double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories of mind aren't afraid of using the word subjectivity. Now all they have to do is find out who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity ! Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 . -- 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 . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@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 . 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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.
Possibly mathematically making Thirdness (meaning) out of Secondness (information) out of firstness (comp raw experience)
Hi Bruno Marchal I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on the (Firstness) output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 03:12:01 Subject: Re: A must read paper On 06 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness Willard L. Miranker, Gregg J. Zuckerman (Submitted on 23 Oct 2008) We employ the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms that characterize sets as mathematical primitives. The Anti-foundation Axiom plays a significant role in our development, since among other of its features, its replacement for the Axiom of Foundation in the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms motivates Platonic interpretations. These interpretations also depend on such allied notions for sets as pictures, graphs, decorations, labelings and various mappings that we use. A syntax and semantics of operators acting on sets is developed. Such features enable construction of a theory of non-well-founded sets that we use to frame mathematical foundations of consciousness. To do this we introduce a supplementary axiomatic system that characterizes experience and consciousness as primitives. The new axioms proceed through characterization of so- called consciousness operators. The Russell operator plays a central role and is shown to be one example of a consciousness operator. Neural networks supply striking examples of non-well-founded graphs the decorations of which generate associated sets, each with a Platonic aspect. Employing our foundations, we show how the supervening of consciousness on its neural correlates in the brain enables the framing of a theory of consciousness by applying appropriate consciousness operators to the generated sets in question. This is part of what I have been assuming form the beginning of my conversation with Bruno so many moons ago. Its nice to see its independent discovery. As the cow-boy guessed right this is assuming too much, both for the formalism used (which is OK), and the ontology, so it uses implicitly non-comp hypothesis, which is less OK, as comp is also assumed implicitly. IT is not uninteresting for possible progress, but it is unaware that matter as to be explained by statistics on computations seen from inside. The role of Russell operator is played by the Kleene second recursion theorem, which encapsulates the non foundation well enough. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO mind is constructive mathematics, creating meaningful structures from raw experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 04:39:30 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno Hi Bruno, Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, because comp, as currently formulated What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism (yes doctor, + Church thesis). Hi Bruno, I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to appeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build your hypostaces, no? No. It is contained in Church thesis. Church thesis assumed elementary arithmetic (and thus the Sigma_1, etc.). only understands the other aspect as a body problem. That's the result. Right. Not the singular form! Well it is a sequence of result. 1p-indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, reduction of the mind-body problem to an arithmetical body problem, theory of quanta as part of a theory of qualia, etc. Just read the papers, as my answer can only point on what has already be done. I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy; ? They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many minds. The assumption have been made clear. None of what you say is assumed. they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an infinite number of instances of a body. You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. Yes. This is not entirely trivial to prove. Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist. ? You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative incarnations exists? It is an elementary consequence of comp. All the existence of universal numbers is a consequence of arithmetical truth. (Of course all arithmetical theory will miss some of such existence, but they still exist in arithmetical truth which is beyond all theories). You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations. ? Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality of minds? See my answer to Clark. I have already explain this. The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons. ? If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any relations beyond itself? Trivial? I misread your original sentence. OK. Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp already. ? Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a conspiracy of numbers? Why? Not at all. Are you talking literally about numbers Yes. 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... With the laws x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x And nothing else (except for some logic sugar), and the comp assumption. Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true and mutually non-contradictory? ? The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs semantics (models). Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the signified or meaning in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas of Platonism... This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is nice, not sure if you known Spanish Make your point, please. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm Kant's Copernican Revolution Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his Copernican Revolution, that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious: the mind could be a tabula rasa, a blank tablet, no more than a bathtub full of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be noise -- less even than a dream or nothing to us, as Kant alternatively puts it. . Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 10:42:30 Subject: Re: A grand hypothesis about order, life, and consciousness On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order out of chaos *. Since at least higher living beings also possess consciousness, my grand hypothesis is that life = consciousness = awareness = producing order out of chaos. I agree Roger. I would add to this understanding however, a logarithmic sense of increasing quality of experience. human experience = consciousness animal experience = awareness microbiotic experience = sensation inorganic experience = persistence of functions and structures. I would not say producing order out of chaos because I think that chaos is not primordial. Nonsense is a mismatch or attenuation of sense, not the other way around. Order cannot be produced from chaos unless chaos implicitly contains the potential for order...which makes the production of orderly appearance really just a formality. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y5Z0qwWOARAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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: Consciousness and NWF sets
Hi Stephen P. King I'm no mathematician, so what do I know, but Russell's paradox would seem to be an alternate incompleteness theorem to Godel's. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 16:19:57 Subject: Consciousness and NWF sets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--Gei6yYvM Pay attention at time 5:10 and on! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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: Re: Epiphenomenalism
Hi Stephen P. King IMHO A universe with 0 objects could still contain Mind-- which had to be there before the universe was created. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 01:14:01 Subject: Re: Epiphenomenalism On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible realities. It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can come up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite field, but that is overly belaboring a point. This can clearly be shown to be false. For me to be responding to this post (using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires the use of prime numbers of 153 decimal digits in length. There are on the order of 10^90 particles in the observable universe. This is far smaller than the prime numbers which are larger than 10^152. So would you say these numbers are not prime, merely because we don't have 10^153 things we can point to? If a number P can be prime in a universe with fewer than P objects in it, might P be prime in a universe with 0 objects? Jason LOL Jason, Did you completely miss the point of reality? When is it even possible to have a universe with 0 objects? Nice oxymoron! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Isn't this a false dilemma ?
Hi meekerdb and all, Perhaps I am missing something. Isn't this a false dilemma ? Why couldn't evolution and reason exist together ? For there must be a reason for everything that happens. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 14:32:19 Subject: Re: Evolution outshines reason by far On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Dear john: 2012/10/4 John Clark ?lberto G. Corona Wrote: Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees! First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of the bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago I know, that's why I said macroscopic. It's easy to make if the wheel is microscopic because nutriments can just diffuse in and waste products diffuse out; but as parts get bigger the volume increases by the cube of the radius but the surface area only increases by the square, so when things get big diffusion just isn't good enough. Evolution never figured out how to do better and make a wheel large enough to see, but people did. ? explained in a post above why evolution does not select ?eels. An autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are not. This is a neat consequence of the need of repairability. No autonomous robot with weels can work for long time without supoort.. This is explained in detail somewhere above. I can imagine a design in which wheels are connected to the circulatory system just as some vehicles are built with hydraulic motors in their wheels.? Or the wheels might be separate organisms in a symbiotic relation.? Those are possible - but it's too hard to get there from here.? So you make the point yourself, evolution is constrained in ways that rational design is not. under intense comet bombardement. try to do it yourself in the same conditions Oh I think if I tried real hard I could figure out how to make a wheel that you didn't need a electron microscope to see, particularly if you gave me 3.8 billion years to work on the problem. But the task stumped Evolution. If there is no weel in natural evolution is because legs are far superior. Claiming that nature could find no use for a macroscopic part that could move in 360 degrees, a part like a neck or a shoulder or a wrist or a ball bearing, is simply not credible. And I have no doubt that a supersonic bird or a propeller driven whale or a fire breathing lizard or a nuclear powered cow could successfully fill environmental niches, but making such a thing was just too hard for random mutation and natural selection to do. The claim of superiority of reason over nature is the last vestige of unjustified antropocentrism Anthropomorphism is a very useful tool but like any tool it can be misused; not all anthropomorphisms are unjustified. in its most dangerous form: Pride and self worship. Guilty as charged, I'm a big fan of pride and self worship, it may be a bit dangerous but is sure? beats the hell out of worshiping God. you at least agree that is dangerous. Beware of all these self-help books. My theory is that self-steem, like suicide and the white of the eyes are social adaptations. ?o other animal has the white of the eyes. Thanks to it, other people can monitor very well your eye movements, so they can detect your lies, deceptions, but the others can trust you, because you bring them a mechanism for mind reading. In the overall, the social group fitness is inproved. Thats why sunglasses make people to look untrusty and menacing!!! I left ?o you to elaborate the conjecture of why self-steem and suicide are social adaptations. ?hese social level adaptation may not be good for each one as individuals, but are good for the society. No society, no you. Therefore in the middle-long term, these things are good for you and your descendants. evolution works simultaneously with infinite variables Evolution does not work in the rarefied realm of pure mathematics it works in the physical world, and as near as we can tell in physics there is not a infinite number of anything. Evolution works with the computer of all reality, that is at the same time its own game scenario. It is massivelly parallel. It has the maximum paralellism that may be achieved: a computer for each element in the game. Natural selection only works in the here and now and it only works with whatever random variations occur.? That's why isolation in a an environmental niche produces biota well adapted to that niche, but not elsewhere.? And such niches depend on the isolation.? Once they are open to all of reality the marsupials get
On the empty or missing pieces to the jigsaw puzzle.
Hi Richard Ruquist I think that the empty or missing pieces to the jigsaw puzzle are simply intelligence, which like life itself, is goal-oriented. Intelligence is not a bottom-up activity, it is a top-down activity. It is also goal-oriented, so it has to be explained by Aristotle's end causation, not the traditional effective causation. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 14:22:12 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory Deacon's 600 page book (http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914) flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception). I found a fairly complete summary of Deacon's book on how life emerges from non-living matter. (Actually Deacon just presents a teleological systems analysis of how that could happen). But regarding a dual-aspect theory, here is a relevant paragraph from that summary (http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/3/290/htm): The Cartesian dualism that Deacon criticizes is substance dualism, the notion that there are two kinds of substance of which the world is constructed, namely physical substance (res extensa) and mental substance (res cogitans), the latter of which in Descartes systems includes God and soul. Deacon? system is actually one of property dualism in which there is just one kind of substance but there exist two distinct kinds of properties, physical and biological the latter of which also includes sentience and mind or in Deacon? terminology physical and ententional. Physical properties are described by thermodynamics and morphodynamics whereas ententional properties are described by teleodynamics, which in turn depend on morphodynamics and thermodynamics. Deacon's one kind of substance is physical substance. But it seems that such a systems approach may be of value no matter (pun) what the substance is or even if there is more than one kind of substance. Deacon presents mechanisms that could be a guide for emergent processes in living systems that could apply to physical matter or even to monads or mind structures from numbers. Richard On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, and have other sources besides that. What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is such a thing. Mind emerges from numbers (or from the combinators, etc.). Matter emerge from mind. Comp explains completely why it looks the contrary locally. Comp might be false, but as matter emerges from mind in a precise way, comp (I survive through machine substitution at some level) is made refutable. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, I recommend the book Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. Richard On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Many thanks, Stephan ! I should have known it before, but double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories of mind aren't afraid of using the word subjectivity. Now all they have to do is find out who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity ! Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message
Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory
Hi meekerdb No, I haven't read them, but if they had a sensible explanation of the creation of life from inert matter, we'd all have heard of it by now. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 21:39:08 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, and have other sources besides that. What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is such a thing. I suppose you've read the basics: Origins of Life by Freeman Dyson, The Origins of Life by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Life's Origin ed. by William Schopf. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory
Hi Roger Clough, On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I understand that comp does not include subjectivity, but that's just explicitly. ? Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms, so it includes subjectivity at the start. And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all scientists, have to postulate initially. I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity. Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in an important way. The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp) is testable, as physics is entirely retrievable in comp (and up to now, it gives the correct quantum logic). Perhaps something can be made of the results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm. That would be a numerical caclulation. Could you be wrong ? Sure. Comp can be wrong, and my argument can be wrong too, but then the argument is precise enough so that you if you assert that it is wrong, you have to find where (if enough polite 'course). Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's called Secondness. Yes. That is what all universal systems do all the time, almost everywhere, in arithmetic. They build sense from patterns, in a variated inexhaustible number of manner, and this by participating simultaneously to infinities of computations (that is special number relations). I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on the (Firstness) output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness. It is not entirely meaningless, but it still assumes Aristotle, and does not really approach the question in philosophy of mind/matter. It assumes the basic Aristotelian metaphysics which I argue to be logically incompatible with comp. There is not output to comp, as comp is not a program or a machine, but a theory, which just postulates that your subjective life is invariant for a a digital change made at some description level of your brain or body. The consequence is that the brain and your body are emergent relative patterns in arithmetic. It makes the whole physics a branch of the theology of numbers, itself part of arithmetic. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine. It is the favorite hypothesis of the materialist, which are understandably not happy with the result which is that comp is incompatible with even very weak version of materialism (the belief in the existence of Matter or primary matter and that is a relation with the matter we can observe). COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1. To be sure, COMP is still compatible, logically, with the existence of primary matter as an epinoumenon (that is a Matter not related to anything we can subjectively observe). Assuming comp things should be like that: NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS MATTER IMHO mind is constructive mathematics, creating meaningful structures from raw experience. That intuition is confirmed by the math of comp + the classical theory of knowledge (Plato, Theaetetus, ...): the third hypostase (Bp p) describe a constructivist intuitionist subject close to Brouwer theory of consciousness. Indeed. Like the logic of matter justifies quantum logic (without assuming anything physical). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:15, Richard Ruquist wrote: Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, I recommend the book Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. Richard On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King
Re: A must read paper
Yes, but it is also in its infancy. With Aczel's work not 30 years old, and this admittedly weak analogy to consciousness only a few years old, which Aczel does not seem to be following up on himself: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~petera/papers.html My point is, this is very young, what's young is always messy and will hopefully tidy itself up, and I can feel some funky aspect, specifically the observer aspect of a non-well-founded set defining a Russell operator, hinting at quantum physics perhaps in the future. It should be called the Cantor operator, but as Zuckerman notes: the importance of PR and publishing makes the difference. So, knowing this, why doesn't he call it the Cantor operator... m On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness Willard L. Mirankerhttp://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Miranker_W/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Gregg J. Zuckermanhttp://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Zuckerman_G/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 23 Oct 2008) We employ the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms that characterize sets as mathematical primitives. The Anti-foundation Axiom plays a significant role in our development, since among other of its features, its replacement for the Axiom of Foundation in the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms motivates Platonic interpretations. These interpretations also depend on such allied notions for sets as pictures, graphs, decorations, labelings and various mappings that we use. A syntax and semantics of operators acting on sets is developed. Such features enable construction of a theory of non-well-founded sets that we use to frame mathematical foundations of consciousness. To do this we introduce a supplementary axiomatic system that characterizes experience and consciousness as primitives. The new axioms proceed through characterization of so- called consciousness operators. The Russell operator plays a central role and is shown to be one example of a consciousness operator. Neural networks supply striking examples of non-well-founded graphs the decorations of which generate associated sets, each with a Platonic aspect. Employing our foundations, we show how the supervening of consciousness on its neural correlates in the brain enables the framing of a theory of consciousness by applying appropriate consciousness operators to the generated sets in question. This is part of what I have been assuming form the beginning of my conversation with Bruno so many moons ago. Its nice to see its independent discovery. As the cow-boy guessed right this is assuming too much, both for the formalism used (which is OK), and the ontology, so it uses implicitly non-comp hypothesis, which is less OK, as comp is also assumed implicitly. IT is not uninteresting for possible progress, but it is unaware that matter as to be explained by statistics on computations seen from inside. The role of Russell operator is played by the Kleene second recursion theorem, which encapsulates the non foundation well enough. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Yes, the Tooth Fairy. I know this because I read it in a book, and the book said that every word was true. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Roger, In string theory the laws and constants of physics and chemistry come from the 6-d Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds which are like the Leibnitz monads and/or the Indra Pearls of Buddhism. They number about 10^90/cc through out the universe, whereas there are about 10^90 particles in the visible universe, an interesting coincidence. Richard On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Epiphenomenalism
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible realities. It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can come up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite field, but that is overly belaboring a point. This can clearly be shown to be false. For me to be responding to this post (using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires the use of prime numbers of 153 decimal digits in length. There are on the order of 10^90 particles in the observable universe. This is far smaller than the prime numbers which are larger than 10^152. So would you say these numbers are not prime, merely because we don't have 10^153 things we can point to? If a number P can be prime in a universe with fewer than P objects in it, might P be prime in a universe with 0 objects? Jason LOL Jason, Did you completely miss the point of reality? When is it even possible to have a universe with 0 objects? Nice oxymoron! Say there is a universe that exists only an infinitely extended 3-manifold. Is this not a universe with 0 objects? In any case, did my example change your opinion regarding the primality of 17 in a universe with 16 objects? Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory
Hi Bruno Marchal How does comp include subjectivity ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory Hi Roger Clough, On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I understand that comp does not include subjectivity, but that's just explicitly. ? Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms, so it includes subjectivity at the start. And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all scientists, have to postulate initially. I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity. Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in an important way. The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp) is testable, as physics is entirely retrievable in comp (and up to now, it gives the correct quantum logic). Perhaps something can be made of the results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm. That would be a numerical caclulation. Could you be wrong ? Sure. Comp can be wrong, and my argument can be wrong too, but then the argument is precise enough so that you if you assert that it is wrong, you have to find where (if enough polite 'course). Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's called Secondness. Yes. That is what all universal systems do all the time, almost everywhere, in arithmetic. They build sense from patterns, in a variated inexhaustible number of manner, and this by participating simultaneously to infinities of computations (that is special number relations). I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on the (Firstness) output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness. It is not entirely meaningless, but it still assumes Aristotle, and does not really approach the question in philosophy of mind/matter. It assumes the basic Aristotelian metaphysics which I argue to be logically incompatible with comp. There is not output to comp, as comp is not a program or a machine, but a theory, which just postulates that your subjective life is invariant for a a digital change made at some description level of your brain or body. The consequence is that the brain and your body are emergent relative patterns in arithmetic. It makes the whole physics a branch of the theology of numbers, itself part of arithmetic. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine. It is the favorite hypothesis of the materialist, which are understandably not happy with the result which is that comp is incompatible with even very weak version of materialism (the belief in the existence of Matter or primary matter and that is a relation with the matter we can observe). COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1. To be sure, COMP is still compatible, logically, with the existence of primary matter as an epinoumenon (that is a Matter not related to anything we can subjectively observe). Assuming comp things should be like that: NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS MATTER IMHO mind is constructive mathematics, creating meaningful structures from raw experience. That intuition is confirmed by the math of comp + the classical theory of knowledge (Plato, Theaetetus, ...): the third hypostase (Bp p) describe a constructivist intuitionist subject close to Brouwer theory of consciousness. Indeed. Like the logic of matter justifies quantum logic (without assuming anything physical). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. Bruno
Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Don't avoid my question please. Where do the laws of physics come from ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 09:43:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Yes, the Tooth Fairy. I know this because I read it in a book, and the book said that every word was true. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@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: A must read paper
On 10/6/2012 8:54 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Yes, but it is also in its infancy. With Aczel's work not 30 years old, and this admittedly weak analogy to consciousness only a few years old, which Aczel does not seem to be following up on himself: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~petera/papers.html http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Epetera/papers.html My point is, this is very young, what's young is always messy and will hopefully tidy itself up, and I can feel some funky aspect, specifically the observer aspect of a non-well-founded set defining a Russell operator, hinting at quantum physics perhaps in the future. It should be called the Cantor operator, but as Zuckerman notes: the importance of PR and publishing makes the difference. So, knowing this, why doesn't he call it the Cantor operator... Hi, I suspect that he named it after Russell because Russell's canonical (?) definition of the paradoxical set. I don't know that Cantor drew any attention to that set, thus he doesn't get credit for it. m On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness Willard L. Miranker http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Miranker_W/0/1/0/all/0/1,Gregg J. Zuckerman http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Zuckerman_G/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 23 Oct 2008) We employ the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms that characterize sets as mathematical primitives. The Anti-foundation Axiom plays a significant role in our development, since among other of its features, its replacement for the Axiom of Foundation in the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms motivates Platonic interpretations. These interpretations also depend on such allied notions for sets as pictures, graphs, decorations, labelings and various mappings that we use. A syntax and semantics of operators acting on sets is developed. Such features enable construction of a theory of non-well-founded sets that we use to frame mathematical foundations of consciousness. To do this we introduce a supplementary axiomatic system that characterizes experience and consciousness as primitives. The new axioms proceed through characterization of so- called consciousness operators. The Russell operator plays a central role and is shown to be one example of a consciousness operator. Neural networks supply striking examples of non-well-founded graphs the decorations of which generate associated sets, each with a Platonic aspect. Employing our foundations, we show how the supervening of consciousness on its neural correlates in the brain enables the framing of a theory of consciousness by applying appropriate consciousness operators to the generated sets in question. This is part of what I have been assuming form the beginning of my conversation with Bruno so many moons ago. Its nice to see its independent discovery. As the cow-boy guessed right this is assuming too much, both for the formalism used (which is OK), and the ontology, so it uses implicitly non-comp hypothesis, which is less OK, as comp is also assumed implicitly. IT is not uninteresting for possible progress, but it is unaware that matter as to be explained by statistics on computations seen from inside. The role of Russell operator is played by the Kleene second recursion theorem, which encapsulates the non foundation well enough. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Epiphenomenalism
On 10/6/2012 10:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible realities. It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can come up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite field, but that is overly belaboring a point. This can clearly be shown to be false. For me to be responding to this post (using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires the use of prime numbers of 153 decimal digits in length. There are on the order of 10^90 particles in the observable universe. This is far smaller than the prime numbers which are larger than 10^152. So would you say these numbers are not prime, merely because we don't have 10^153 things we can point to? If a number P can be prime in a universe with fewer than P objects in it, might P be prime in a universe with 0 objects? Jason LOL Jason, Did you completely miss the point of reality? When is it even possible to have a universe with 0 objects? Nice oxymoron! Say there is a universe that exists only an infinitely extended 3-manifold. Is this not a universe with 0 objects? In any case, did my example change your opinion regarding the primality of 17 in a universe with 16 objects? Jason Were did the infinitely extended 3-manifold come from? You are treating it as if it where an object! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. This is not entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. In what sense are these incarnations 'the same person'? In Everett's MWI they share some past history and memories, but obviously they diverge and are no longer 'the same'. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Maxwell on Metaphysics and Theology
I have read a nice paper Jordi Cat Into the ‘regions of physical and metaphysical chaos’: Maxwell’s scientific metaphysics and natural philosophy of action (agency, determinacy and necessity from theology, moral philosophy and history to mathematics, theory and experiment) Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 91–104 It was interesting to see how questions discussed at this list (physics, theology, mind and body) have been answered by Maxwell. The abstract of the paper: Maxwell’s writings exhibit an enduring preoccupation with the role of metaphysics in the advancement of science, especially the progress of physics. I examine the question of the distinction and the proper relation between physics and metaphysics and the way in which the question relies on key notions that bring together much of Maxwell’s natural philosophy, theoretical and experimental. Previous discussions of his attention to metaphysics have been confined to specific issues and polemics such as conceptions of matter and the problem of free will. I suggest a unifying pattern based on a generalized philosophical perspective and varying expressions, although never a systematic or articulated philosophical doctrine, but at least a theme of action and active powers, natural and human, intellectual and material, with sources and grounds in theology, moral philosophy and historical argument. While science was developing in the direction of professional specialization and alongside the rise of materialism, Maxwell held on to conservative intellectual outlook, but one that included a rich scientific life and held science as part of a rich intellectual, cultural and material life. His philosophical outlook integrated his science with and captured the new Victorian culture of construction and work, political, economic, artistic and engineering. Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/10/maxwell-on-metaphysics-and-theology.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors. Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is fully supported from the start. We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart? you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense experience. No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? How do you know? I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know because they have none, they only have cause and effect. How is it different from our purpose in staying in close proximity to places to eat and sleep? And to think that some people berated me for anthropomorphizing future supercomputers and here you are anthropomorphizing simple chemicals. Why is everything aware, why isn't everything not aware? Because then we wouldn't be aware of having this conversation. And we are aware of having this conversation because everything is aware, except of course for computers. Robots are something No, they aren't something. That is just a little too silly to argue. Everything is awareness Are you certain, I thought everything is klogknee, or maybe its everything is 42. evolution requires that something be alive to begin with. Evolution requires something that can reproduce itself, there is no universally agreed on definition of life so if you want to say that viruses and RNA strings and crystals and clay patterns and Von Neumann Machines are alive I won't argue with you and will agree that Evolution requires that something be alive to get started. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
On 06 Oct 2012, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote: On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. This is not entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. In what sense are these incarnations 'the same person'? In the same sense that, before opening the the out door of the Washington and MOscow reconstitution boxes, they are the same as that guy who decided to do the experience in Sidney. In real life (arithmetical truth) we do that experience an infinity of times per possible computational steps going through our current state. In Everett's MWI they share some past history and memories, but obviously they diverge and are no longer 'the same'. Same here. Bruno Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@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: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory
Hi Roger Clough, On 06 Oct 2012, at 16:47, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal How does comp include subjectivity ? As I said, comp is a bet on a form of reincarnation, as you accept to change your body for a new (digital) one. Comp, by definition, at least the one I gave, is the bet that your subjectivity is invariant for some change made in the local universe. It presupposes subjectivity at the start. You might read: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Hi Stathis Papaioannou Don't avoid my question please. Where do the laws of physics come from ? I will answer this, of course Stathis can comment. The laws of physics comes from the arithmetical truth, actually a tiny part of it. They are the way the intensional or relative universal numbers see themselves in a persistent (symmetrical, with probability close to one) manner. Physics is what stabilize consciousness in the number realm. The details on this are what we are aligned on, so I refer to the posts, and to the paper above to see the link with comp and arithmetic). But you can ask question (I cannot sum up the thing in one sentence). You must get the technical point that arithmetical truth emulates all computations. Then everything follows from comp, the dreams, and the indeterminacy on them. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory Hi Roger Clough, On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I understand that comp does not include subjectivity, but that's just explicitly. ? Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms, so it includes subjectivity at the start. And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all scientists, have to postulate initially. I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity. Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in an important way. The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp) is testable, as physics is entirely retrievable in comp (and up to now, it gives the correct quantum logic). Perhaps something can be made of the results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm. That would be a numerical caclulation. Could you be wrong ? Sure. Comp can be wrong, and my argument can be wrong too, but then the argument is precise enough so that you if you assert that it is wrong, you have to find where (if enough polite 'course). Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's called Secondness. Yes. That is what all universal systems do all the time, almost everywhere, in arithmetic. They build sense from patterns, in a variated inexhaustible number of manner, and this by participating simultaneously to infinities of computations (that is special number relations). I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on the (Firstness) output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness. It is not entirely meaningless, but it still assumes Aristotle, and does not really approach the question in philosophy of mind/matter. It assumes the basic Aristotelian metaphysics which I argue to be logically incompatible with comp. There is not output to comp, as comp is not a program or a machine, but a theory, which just postulates that your subjective life is invariant for a a digital change made at some description level of your brain or body. The consequence is that the brain and your body are emergent relative patterns in arithmetic. It makes the whole physics a branch of the theology of numbers, itself part of arithmetic. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine. It is the favorite hypothesis of the materialist, which are understandably not happy with the result which is that comp is incompatible with even very weak version of materialism (the belief in the existence of Matter or primary matter and that is a relation with the matter we can observe). COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1. To be sure, COMP is still compatible, logically, with the existence of primary matter as an epinoumenon (that is a Matter not related to anything we can subjectively observe). Assuming comp things should be like that: NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS MATTER IMHO mind is constructive mathematics, creating
