Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:30:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/21/2019 11:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
>> https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817
>>
>>
>> A lot to read:
>>
>>
>> *On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of 
>> consciousness* 
>> Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne ]
>> https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367
>>
>> *Symposium on Bayne, “On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated 
>> information theory of consciousness”*
>>
>> http://philosophyofbrains.com/2019/05/20/symposium-on-bayne-on-the-axiomatic-foundations-of-the-integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness.aspx
>>
>>
>> includes 
>> Hedda Hassel Mørch (commentary):
>>
>> "[IIT] can also be and is in some ways better interpreted as a form of 
>> Russellian monism, the view that conscious or protoconscious properties 
>> constitute the intrinsic nature of physical properties (which physics 
>> reveals as purely extrinsic and structural), and therefore would not be 
>> (purely) physical. This could be understood as compatible with IIT’s claim 
>> that consciousness is identical with integrated information, which could be 
>> interpreted to say that consciousness is identical with integrated 
>> information understood, not as a purely physical property, but as a 
>> property that may include a non-physical intrinsic nature."
>>
>>
>> But read https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 
>> 
>>  
>> first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium 
> article.
>
> He knows something about - and may be considered an expert in - 
> computational complexity (classical and quantum), but he doesn't know much 
> more than anyone else outside his specialty, especially - he doesn't know 
> much about the subject of consciousness.
>
>
> Neither does Tononi.  And Scott knows how to calculate integrated 
> information.
>
> Brent
>


"integrated information" (in the context of consciousness science) is not a 
well-defined term. That was part of what the underlying paper (on "axioms") 
and commentary critical of IIT was all about.

So why doesn't Scott write an update post from the one he wrote 5 years 
ago? Because he is not in the field of conscious science - his field is 
computational complexity, which is pretty useless in contributing anything 
to the subject.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/783fa86d-0778-4f81-9336-6356ea3a0e71%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/22/2019 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 May 2019, at 20:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


The Higgs boson was produced very much "at will".  In fact a lot 
willing went into it.


You mean the Englert-Brout-Higgs boson?

Englert did not want it. He was disappointed. He learned nothing. He 
said it on TV when he got the prize.


He was used to assume the Standard Model of the particles.

He would have preferred something new. Like a refutation, a surprise, 
enforcing the change of mind, something needed to progress.


All physicists would have preferred something new.  You don't make 
progress just by confirmation.


Brent



So, if you tell me that the Higgs boson appeared by the psychic will 
of a conspiracy of telepath physicists, (with some help of the 
engineers, I guess), I don’ think Englert participated in this.


Bruno






Brent

On 5/21/2019 1:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Telepathy doesn't happen necessarily at will. It only happens when 
certain conditions are being met. Asking someone to produce 
telepathy on the spot is like asking him to produce Higgs Boson on 
the spot. So let's do like this: you produce me a Higgs Boson, and 
I'll produce you a telepathy. If you can't do it, it means Higgs 
Bosons don't exist. They are just anecdots from a bunch of gurus at 
CERN.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50a47b30-407b-497d-a1c4-d84d397f5928%40googlegroups.com 
.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f46186b-156a-8853-fc7d-8e3255df085f%40verizon.net 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95E57ED8-EDAF-485F-A6F6-57317C1C03EC%40ulb.ac.be 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/869a2190-3d99-7b1b-51cd-49df1d54103a%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/22/2019 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 May 2019, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be provable, nor 
why that is relevant.

It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.

Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately true 
and not provable.

Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question.

“I am conscious” is the experience, not the 3P description of the brain which 
might make that experience manifestable.




When you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that moment.

Yes. Normally. Obviously, we can have fever, get mad, but all this are 
irrelevant for the logical reasoning.






I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate telepathically (by EM as I recall) visit 
Earth.  They can "read the minds" of humans but they are frustrated in trying to 
communicate with humans because the humans keep opening their mouths and producing vibrations and 
whenever they do this, their "minds" go blank.

OK. But that is science-fiction. The immediacy factor is subjective. If the 
human say “I am conscious”, its perception of consciousness seems direct. Some 
notorious experience by Libet show that a decision we believe being made 
consciously is actually already done unconsciously before the decision is 
conscious,


Also the Grey Walter experiments.


which is stronger than what I say. The point is the the subject feel that 
consciousness is immediate.


As Dennett has pointed out your brain synchronizes perceptions by 
compensating for the different delays in being processed and reaching 
consciousness.  I have noted this myself.  If something unexpected 
happens like a small explosion this synchronization fails and you hear 
the explosion before you see it.


Brent


That happens in both the []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p self-reference modes. The 
Kripke accessibility relation islets the transitivity in the communicable part and incommmunicable 
parts (handled by G and G* respectively).

Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd76cadb-c855-ff33-3a61-f89b6be75270%40verizon.net.

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/21/2019 11:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817



A lot to read:


*On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information
theory of consciousness*
Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne
 ]
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367


*Symposium on Bayne, “On the axiomatic foundations of the
integrated information theory of consciousness”*

http://philosophyofbrains.com/2019/05/20/symposium-on-bayne-on-the-axiomatic-foundations-of-the-integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness.aspx




includes
Hedda Hassel Mørch (commentary):

"[IIT] can also be and is in some ways better interpreted as a
form of Russellian monism, the view that conscious or
protoconscious properties constitute the intrinsic nature of
physical properties (which physics reveals as purely extrinsic
and structural), and therefore would not be (purely) physical.
This could be understood as compatible with IIT’s claim that
consciousness is identical with integrated information, which
could be interpreted to say that consciousness is identical with
integrated information understood, not as a purely physical
property, but as a property that may include a non-physical
intrinsic nature."


But read https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799


first.

Brent




I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium 
article.


He knows something about - and may be considered an expert in - 
computational complexity (classical and quantum), but he doesn't know 
much more than anyone else outside his specialty, especially - he 
doesn't know much about the subject of consciousness.


Neither does Tononi.  And Scott knows how to calculate integrated 
information.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6de4e8d6-b0b3-8ca3-8180-1a7711a5b6d1%40verizon.net.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:14:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 2147 Breaking News:
> Alfred has used a very cheap teleportation device to go on Mars. He seemed OK 
> and claimed he has not changed, but his wife believes he lost his sense of 
> humour. 
> An inquest revealed that the the substitution level chose by the candidate 
> were indeed not always used, and very often the society used a much higher 
> level.

This makes more sense if the French word "société" is translated as
"company" rather than "society". One the many faux frères - pairs of
similar words with distinctly different meanings in French and
English.

> Many users lost some psychological trait, like sense of humour, or some 
> memories, or even the ability to have REM sleep.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190522231425.GS5592%40zen.

Finitist Set Theory

[Philip Thrift]

Finitist Set Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory

"The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only 
those elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed 
by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] exist which are stated to exist 
by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are constructed 
by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to these."

From:
Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
Applied Ontology  (2018)

Abstract
"This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a 
straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations 
between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. 
Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and 
antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as 
foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them 
unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been 
designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and 
antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from difficulties of 
traditional set theories, and a major portion of the functionality of 
discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes FST a viable 
collection theory in ontological modeling."


Relation of finitist sets to processes:

The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
adapted from: 
- Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
representation of emergent parts of processes. 
- Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process 
theory. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory

"General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process ontology. 
According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday practice 
consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
general processes. The paper offers a brief introduction to GPT in order to 
provide ontological foundations for research programs such as interactivism 
that centrally rely on the notions of ‘process,’ ‘interaction,’ and 
‘emergence.’ I begin with an analysis of our common sense concept of 
activities, which plays a crucial heuristic role in the development of the 
notion of a general process. General processes are not individuated in 
terms of their location but in terms of ‘what they do,’ i.e., in terms of 
their dynamic relationships in the basic sense of one process being part of 
another. The formal framework of GPT is thus an extensional mereology, 
albeit a non-classical theory with a non-transitive part-relation. After a 
brief sketch of basic notions and strategies of the GPT-framework I show 
how the latter may be applied to distinguish between causal, mechanistic, 
functional, self-maintaining, and recursively self-maintaining 
interactions, all of which involve ‘emergent phenomena’ in various senses 
of the term."

cf. Locally Finite Theories
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273942

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e50b919-7aff-4811-a230-e1eb771e9cf6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 7:53:21 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> First we have Cosmin Visan's nonsense and now this. Is The Everything List 
> turning into Crackpot Central?
>
>  John K Clark
>



The primary world's religious texts have some poetic value at best, but 
there's a ton of humanity-damaging content in these (some more than others) 
as well.

Best to stick to stuff about real stuff: 
https://www.livescience.com/65256-first-molecule-in-the-universe.html

But for crackpottery, what a number of physicists (especially) write today 
is up there. The list is growing ...

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e1ec453-8692-4a5d-a18f-1f7d7cec4829%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 May 2019, at 20:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> The Higgs boson was produced very much "at will".  In fact a lot willing went 
> into it.

You mean the Englert-Brout-Higgs boson?

Englert did not want it. He was disappointed. He learned nothing. He said it on 
TV when he got the prize.

He was used to assume the Standard Model of the particles.

He would have preferred something new. Like a refutation, a surprise, enforcing 
the change of mind, something needed to progress.

So, if you tell me that the Higgs boson appeared by the psychic will of a 
conspiracy of telepath physicists, (with some help of the engineers, I guess), 
I don’ think Englert participated in this.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> On 5/21/2019 1:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> Telepathy doesn't happen necessarily at will. It only happens when certain 
>> conditions are being met. Asking someone to produce telepathy on the spot is 
>> like asking him to produce Higgs Boson on the spot. So let's do like this: 
>> you produce me a Higgs Boson, and I'll produce you a telepathy. If you can't 
>> do it, it means Higgs Bosons don't exist. They are just anecdots from a 
>> bunch of gurus at CERN.
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50a47b30-407b-497d-a1c4-d84d397f5928%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f46186b-156a-8853-fc7d-8e3255df085f%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95E57ED8-EDAF-485F-A6F6-57317C1C03EC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 May 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Derive here from addition and multiplication the color red.

“Derive” here is ambiguous.

If you mean literally to derive the colour red from addition and 
multiplication, then you ask me something impossible. Yet, what I can show is 
that impossibility is already derivable by the universal (Löbian, rich) machine.

The first thing consists in deriving the existence of the universal machines in 
arithmetic, but that was entirely done in Gödel 1931. He missed the universal 
machine, but the followers will not miss it (and Emil Post saw it 10 years 
before).

Just some details, to give you the idea how that is possible. 

The harder step is deriving first the exponentiation from addition and 
multiplication. Gödel used a famous idea in Number theory, sometimes called the 
Chinese Lemma. It is modular arithmetic, which already alone have a Babbage 
gear wheel universal machine. See Gödel 1931, or any textbook in mathematical 
logic.

Once you have exponentiation, as I have explained recently, you can derive 
faithful (isomorphic) representation of finite sequences of numbers, in term of 
addition and multiplication.

>From this you can imagine that we can represent simple known Turing universal 
>machine, and indeed all this is “well known” in this domain.

Then, to please Brent, and invoking the environment, and using a physical 
computer , I will follow the shorter way to the colour red, by training a 
neural net to recognise colour, and notably the colour red. 

Now the difficult step: the neural net has to be largely re-entrant. It a 
neural in a torus, with still some entry, facing the colored objects. I need 
this to make the neural net Löbian, he trains itself on itself.

All this has been done by the physical computers, which implement a digital 
universal machine, whose existence is a theorem of arithmetic. 

In the theory given by the Löbian machine itself, the qualia red has the 
property to be experientially obvious, but not belonging to the 3p describable 
type.

The experience itself cannot be attached to any of its number theoretical 
implementation, but to all of them. That infinities and the unavoidable 
redundance, including the necessity of long and deep histories, play a role in 
stabilising the histories. For us “red” has many connotations, if only because 
it is the color of blood. Most plausibly the qualia of “red” of the simple 
arithmetical toroidal neural net above is quite dissimilar to our, so I don’t 
claim having capture the human red qualia. For this one, the numbers will be a 
the relative representations of yourself in arithmetic, which exists (an 
infinity) when we assume the digital Mechanist hypothesis.

But even without the mechanist hypothesis, it is a theorem that the Löbian 
machine can understand that they can’t prove to anyone that they are conscious, 
or that they have qualia. 

Above the universal treshold you are confronted to the non provable, the non 
controllable, or insecurity, and a Lobian machine is mainly a universal machine 
who knows that she is universal, and she knows the price, and that price is 
notably that 99,9% of her accessible truth are not communicable, nor 
describable. But then that is why there is art, music and poets. 

Bruno






> 
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:40:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> What about color red ?
> 
> As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is 
> derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to 
> Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) that 
> a weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6abdfb87-7999-4ff5-a246-529f797b77a9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A9899035-325D-4812-8175-FCB971A809D0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 May 2019, at 17:50, howardmarks  wrote:
> 
> That's the essence of it... not to confuse theology and ontology with a 
> search for the truth..


That’s it.

Actually, whatever the domain of the inquiry is.


Bruno




> 
> On 5/21/2019 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 20 May 2019, at 14:18, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 5:55:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 16 May 2019, at 14:13, Lawrence Crowell >>> > wrote:
 
 On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:18:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
 I heard there are a couple of people that claim they've been on the Moon. 
 I asked them to prove it to me by going again, but they said they cannot 
 do it. What do you think ? Is this anecdote true ?
 
 When I was a kid I was big on the moon landing. We went on a vacation  
  to Florida and saw one of the Saturn V rockets 
 lift off. The thing is that if these were faked, then NASA built a 370 
 foot tall rocket that roared off the launch pad only to ditch the thing in 
 the ocean or some such event and then do a studio enactment. If NASA were 
 to build such a machine, why fake it? --- they might as well have gone all 
 the way. 
 
 For a 5 years in the 90s I was employed in spacecraft navigation. I worked 
 the mechanics on how to get a spacecraft to some orbit in space, whether 
 around Earth or out into the solar system, or to reach some other 
 planetary body. I timed my visits to the Kennedy Space Center to watch 
 shuttle launches, one landing and some Delta launches. This stuff is not 
 faked. There is in fact a visitor center where an unused Saturn V rocket 
 is displayed. 
 
 The idea that moon landings are faked is in line with other historical 
 denials, such as holocaust denial or that black slaves in the south really 
 enjoyed their status and so forth. Conspiracy ideas and nonsense about 
 alt-history or alt-science such as creationism (even flat earth stuff is 
 getting popular) are growing in decibel volume these days. It is a sign 
 the minds of people, particularly Americans, are being rubbished up.
>>> 
>>> It is very sad sign that education has been lowering down for sometimes. It 
>>> confirms my feeling that fake theologies, like in most religious 
>>> institutions is a bad training in argument per-authority. 
>>> We will leave the Middle-Âge and obscurantism when theology will be 
>>> returned back at the faculty of science, where we are humble and modest, 
>>> never claim truth, and propose theories with means of evaluation.
>>> The separation of science and theology has separated the human and the 
>>> exact sciences making them both inexact and inhuman.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> I would question to what extent theology has been ever a faculty of science.
>> 
>> It has been, from Pythagorus (-500)  to Damascius (+500), in occident, and 
>> from +500 to 1248 in the Middle-east. In both occident and middle-east, it 
>> has stopped due to the stealing of it by the temporal powers, for private 
>> use (goal: to control people and steal their money and means).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Since I presume most people on this list are Christian I will use that,
>> 
>> 
>> To be provoque a little, I like to say that christianise ended also in +500. 
>> Before the closure of Plato’Academy in athene, christians were divided into 
>> the neoplatoncian and the aristotelician. After, Aristotle theology (the 
>> belief in a primary physical universe, or the belief that the physical 
>> universe cannot be explained by something simpler) has been made obligatory, 
>> or you would have been treated as pagan   theologian or heretics, 
>> and be exiled or burned alive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> where if you think about it Jesus turning water into wine is not really 
>>> that different an idea from Cinderella's fairy godmother turning mice and a 
>>> pumpkin into a team of horses bridled to a carriage.
>> 
>> If you give me an evidence that Jesus has transformed ware in wine, the 
>> simplest explanation would be that Jesus is good in prestidigitation.
>> 
>> Like we can abandon our belief in a primary physical universe by simple 
>> presti-digitalism. Universal numbers are very good in making you belief that 
>> some dreams are real ...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> In both instances you have some supernatural being, or a being capable of 
>>> supernatural powers, able to convert matter from one form to another by 
>>> shear force of thought or will. The difference is the narrative about Jesus 
>>> is offered up as absolute divine truth and the story about Cinderella is a 
>>> bit more honest and is framed as a fairy tale. 
>> 
>> There is no texts, nor myth when we do theology as a science, like the 
>> greeks did for an entire millenium. At that time, theology was an option 
>> after many ye

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 May 2019, at 10:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Oh, now you say ? So what's the difference ?

Arithmetic meant here the model of the arithmetical theories. The model is, to 
be informal, everything true about the natural numbers and their definable and 
non definable relations, be them computable or not.

The theories are tools to explore that reality, but after Gödel 1931, we know 
that any effective theory (effective = those theories where the proof are 
checkable in finite time) can only scratch the model.

Arithmetic is “essentially undecidable”. You can build a theory and add as many 
axioms as you want, you still only scratch the surface of the truth. Not just 
because it is infinite (first order real analysis is much more infinite than 
the natural numbers) but is decidable!, but because it is irreducibly complex.

Bruno 



> 
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:30:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Arithmetic (not to be confused with human theories about arithmetic) 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/550bcd11-9ad5-4f09-a537-15fb9b0f3c1f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AFD30D9E-FC89-48C1-9931-EDB3F423D855%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: for Cosmin

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 May 2019, at 10:07, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> What determines red to appear ?

Deep (long) first person histories occurring from the first person point of 
view in Arithmetic, on which the consciousness (of the universal numbers) 
differentiate. “The red qualia” sum up useful information in the normal first 
person (plural) continuations. It is hard to be simple and short on this, but 
you might study a bit of computer science and my papers. The role of the brain 
is to make possible for consciousness to manage quickly complex possible 
(relative) situations, I would say.

Bruno





> 
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:25:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> They appear in a “perceptual semantics” that Bell (the logician, not the 
> physicist) has proposed for a special quantum logic. They belong to the logic 
> of the material modes of the self (defined with a mathematical apparatus G*, 
> often called logic of self-reference) in the communicable part. It shows that 
> a s-certain type of machine will be able to describes what it sees, name 
> colours, and be able to understand that their qualia seems not rationally 
> communicable. The machine might see  the red coloration more like a “green” 
> perhaps, but of course, she will learn to call it green.
> 
> You need to read some book in logic to grasp fully what G* is all about. But 
> that is the answer in a nutshell.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/56e19ce5-d6b0-4d34-9887-b2d15b997a73%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8bb0e551-fd0c-4111-8645-d6eebe8627e5%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7A496F19-6344-4A5E-8D34-A8E264B01EF9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Tomasz Rola]

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:52:44AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> First we have Cosmin Visan's nonsense and now this. Is The Everything List
> turning into Crackpot Central?

Perhaps the guy only wants to share with you the best thing that he
knows. Cosmin earned his entitlement by consistently making certain
opinions and not quite willing to learn from discussion, as far as I
can be a judge (but since I have not read all of his postings, I might
be wrong).

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190522134210.GA24103%40tau1.ceti.pl.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 May 2019, at 21:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> You just invoke your God again, but the whole point of doing science, 
>> especially theological or metaphysics is to keep personal conviction out of 
>> the research. To use word like “real” is a symptom of 
>> pseudo-science/religion.
> 
> Then stop using arithmetical realism.

“Realism” here is just the belief that RA axioms are true about the “well 
known” structure N. That is not an assumption in metaphysics, but in 
mathematics.

Its formal correspondent is captured by the Excluded Middle Principle. It is 
needed to make sense of the idea that phi_i(j) converges or does not converge.

We can use here a technical weakening to please the intuitionist, (~p v ~~p) 
but it is not necessary to do that, as an intuitionist will never say “yes” to 
a doctor, unless perhaps in last resort, when the choice is between a certain 
death or a possible survival.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c4d5a64-f02f-bad3-b9cd-fdadf7e7026f%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EA6E865B-3C89-485A-8D52-F26A58FD7207%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 May 2019, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be provable, 
>>> nor why that is relevant.
>> 
>> It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.
>> 
>> Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately 
>> true and not provable.
> 
> Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question.

“I am conscious” is the experience, not the 3P description of the brain which 
might make that experience manifestable. 



> When you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that moment. 

Yes. Normally. Obviously, we can have fever, get mad, but all this are 
irrelevant for the logical reasoning.





> I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate telepathically (by 
> EM as I recall) visit Earth.  They can "read the minds" of humans but they 
> are frustrated in trying to communicate with humans because the humans keep 
> opening their mouths and producing vibrations and whenever they do this, 
> their "minds" go blank.

OK. But that is science-fiction. The immediacy factor is subjective. If the 
human say “I am conscious”, its perception of consciousness seems direct. Some 
notorious experience by Libet show that a decision we believe being made 
consciously is actually already done unconsciously before the decision is 
conscious, which is stronger than what I say. The point is the the subject feel 
that consciousness is immediate. 
That happens in both the []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p self-reference modes. The 
Kripke accessibility relation islets the transitivity in the communicable part 
and incommmunicable parts (handled by G and G* respectively).

Bruno 





> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/45F3EC1F-A135-4AF3-9CFE-211403CBCE31%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 May 2019, at 20:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Atheism is radical post-529 christianism. Before 529, theology was still 
>> done with the greek method: discussion, theories, experimentation, and 
>> changing the theories/definitions each time a contradiction appears. 
> 
> What theological experiments were performed?

“Theological experiments” is a *very* general notion: to live is one of them, 
to get some mystical experience is the most common, but to observe reality and 
think, and compare through dialog with other falls also on that rubric.

The point is is that they did theology with the scientific attitude: modesty, 
observation and theorisation, with the ability to change mind as often as 
necessary.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0882703-1c0e-e23a-1cb9-c7e551a86aa3%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E33AB588-634C-4BA8-972F-98C432CD0D16%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 May 2019, at 19:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 20 May 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/20/2019 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 For the loss of it, I will have to read the 3p report “the guy teleported 
 himself to Mars and die”. For the change of consciousness, well, if you 
 wake up on Mars with a headache, but with a feeling that something is 
 wrong, it is up to you to explain this to your doctor. It is personal.
>>> But per your hypothesis this can only happen if the duplication was not 
>>> accurate...since you didn't have a headache before.  So it's no longer 
>>> "you" but some Mars version that is similar to you.  That was my 
>>> point...that where duplication is possible, "you" are not well defined.
>> 
>> Nobody would say that they have stopped to exist when they have a headache.
>> 
>> “You are defined” by all your psychological traits. Memories, character, 
>> personality, etc. With mechanism, there is some level of description of your 
>> body where this in invariant, so that it makes sense to survive through a 
>> digital brain or body transplant.
>> 
>> I don’t understand why you say that when a duplication is possible, “you” 
>> are not well defined. “You” is just fuzzy. The 3p-you is well defined (if 
>> not there is no duplication making sense), and the 1p you is well defined, 
>> by all all persons who have conserved the relevant memories, character, etc, 
>> which exists by definition of the mechanist hypothesis.
> 
> Fuzzy = not well defined. 

OK.


> What are "relevant" memories.

The same you need to conserve in case of any operation. What you and your 
family needs to say to your friend that the operation (digital brain 
transplant) has been a success, or to say, the Earth Mars teleportation device 
works fine.
Nobody can know with certainty its substitution level. Maybe rich people will 
teleported themselves well below the substitution level by precaution if they 
can afford it (the number of bit will be in general bigger).




>   What are "all your psychological traits”. 

2147 Breaking News:
Alfred has used a very cheap teleportation device to go on Mars. He seemed OK 
and claimed he has not changed, but his wife believes he lost his sense of 
humour. 
An inquest revealed that the the substitution level chose by the candidate were 
indeed not always used, and very often the society used a much higher level. 
Many users lost some psychological trait, like sense of humour, or some 
memories, or even the ability to have REM sleep.



> The problem is there is no level of description where this is invariant 
> because "this" ill defined.

No, it is well defined by the mechanist assumption. It just that we cannot know 
for sure our description level.

For the biological body, the living creature reproduce themselves at some 
description level (encoded in the DNA), it works. For a brain,, to conserve the 
psychological identity, the copy needs some level of accuracy much more precise 
than a piece of DNA code, but, by definition of digital mechanism it exists.

The non constructively is not a problem in the reversal reasoning, because in 
the arithmetical reality, you are “reconstituted” (to be short) at *all* level 
of description, and the physical laws are reduced to the statistics on the 
first person person experience related to the infinity of computations 
supporting the your current state.



> And invariant under what?   Duplication?

That depends on the step of the reasoning. At step 1, your consciousness is 
"preserved correctly” in the operation of scanning+annihilation together with 
the reconstitution.




>   Time evolution? 

3p time evolution, that is precisely what your first person reality is not 
dependent upon (step 2).



> Different threads of the UD?


Yes, at step 7, you are supposed to understand that your next first person 
state depends on all the continuation of your computation at the right 
substitution level and below, that are realised, in the relative way, in the 
arithmetical reality (also called the standard model of the Arithmetical 
Theories).

The Arithmetic Reality determines in this sense an internal many-histories 
interpretation of Arithmetic, and if both mechanism and quantum mechanics are 
correct, they should be the same, which is testable, and tested, assuming the 
physicists agrees on QM and on its quantum logic(s). They are nuances here made 
by the physicists, which are welcome, because the universal machine introduces 
some nuances too: we get three quantum logics.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@google

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[John Clark]

First we have Cosmin Visan's nonsense and now this. Is The Everything List
turning into Crackpot Central?

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1j9cUQ%2BMCSZzbOCXH3%3D1mmXxHP%2BzQ5qNyz83WTmjV1vw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 3:38:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> IIT is just a materialistic fairy-tale.
>

But isn't Hedda's response in the symposium: 

 IIT is a physicalistic fairy-tale

?

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f9ee852a-1f8a-4626-98f5-dbf87f1c6ada%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Derive here from addition and multiplication the color red.

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:40:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> What about color red ?
>
>
> As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is 
> derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to 
> Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) 
> that a weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6abdfb87-7999-4ff5-a246-529f797b77a9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

IIT is just a materialistic fairy-tale.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a9e45bc-902b-4646-9329-37f9c4f9ee84%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

As I also clearly specified in my post, we don't tell each other dreams on 
a regular basis. So after years of not telling our dreams, to one day 
receiving a message from her telling me her dream, don't you find it 
suspicious ? Oh wait, you don't, the power of rationalization in strong 
within people, so it was just a "coincidence".

Also, contrary to your rationalizations, the dreams matched of course. The 
problem is that you expect from telepathy to be 100% correct, when not even 
experiments in physics are not 100% correct. In QM the particles hit the 
screen all over the place. Based on your rationalization, QM is false.

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 20:45:45 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Problem is that people that want to believe - and take one seeming "hit", 
> like Cosmin's girl friend story - and don't count dozens or hundreds of 
> total misses. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c0f2569-bd44-4c20-9222-a73697a09a79%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:27:08 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
> Did you consider that maybe you had recently shared experiences / 
> conversations / whatever that triggered similar dreams? Or that you woke up 
> and saw the facebook message before dreaming but don't remember it? Or...
>

Wow... I like when materialist believers want at all cost to stick to their 
belief, and therefore start to rationalize the most absurd ideas. Since I 
told you that I woke up and THEN I saw the message, what makes you say that 
I first saw the message and then had the dream ? OMG!!! The absurdity of 
rationalization goes skyrocket!

Regarding "recent conversations", it again doesn't hold, because based on 
that theory, every night we should have the same dreams, since every day we 
have conversations. So lol.

>
> One day I was standing in a train station. This thought came out of 
> nowhere: "wouldn't it be weird if an empty train just passed by?". An empty 
> train just passed by moment after. Empty trains that do not stop were not a 
> common event at that station, it was the first time I saw one. Is this 
> proof or even strong evidence of precognition? Of course not, there are 
> 1000 more prosaic explanations to consider before assuming something that 
> is so much outside of our understanding of reality. For example, I might 
> have noticed some warning but only became aware of it at some subconscious 
> level. Or maybe I observed 2 or 3 unusual things and my brain connected the 
> dots.
>

Yes, it was a precognition. Stop rationalizing the truth to fit into your 
false beliefs. I also had a similar experience. I always buy milk chocolate 
in the launch break at work. And they always have also peanuts chocolate. 
One day it crossed my mind: "What if today I buy peanuts chocolate ?". When 
I got to the shop, there was no more peanuts chocolate available. So there 
you are: precognition. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33a8808f-e652-4f34-b0ff-816b325ee8f0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Oh, now you say ? So what's the difference ?

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:30:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Arithmetic (not to be confused with human theories about arithmetic) 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/550bcd11-9ad5-4f09-a537-15fb9b0f3c1f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What determines red to appear ?

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:25:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> They appear in a “perceptual semantics” that Bell (the logician, not the 
> physicist) has proposed for a special quantum logic. They belong to the 
> logic of the material modes of the self (defined with a mathematical 
> apparatus G*, often called logic of self-reference) in the communicable 
> part. It shows that a s-certain type of machine will be able to describes 
> what it sees, name colours, and be able to understand that their qualia 
> seems not rationally communicable. The machine might see  the red 
> coloration more like a “green” perhaps, but of course, she will learn to 
> call it green.
>
> You need to read some book in logic to grasp fully what G* is all about. 
> But that is the answer in a nutshell.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/56e19ce5-d6b0-4d34-9887-b2d15b997a73%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8bb0e551-fd0c-4111-8645-d6eebe8627e5%40googlegroups.com.