Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
nothing has changed about the human condition and nothing will ever change! indeed not in our generation or our great grandchildren's generation, behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_of_Pessimism there is nothing new under the sun! Bruno's false optimism is exposed! Bruno is refuted. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/7/2011 10:43 PM, B Soroud wrote: in fact, religion/spirituality/**mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more then the exact opposite of the truth. Well then all we have to do is take it's negation and we'll have the truth. :-) 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Is it important what is in my mind when I use the words? I don't have to hold the whole earth or the whole solar system in my head for them to exist. I think your playing language games... What is this whole earth or whole solar system to which you confidently refer? I assert they don't exist, they never have existed, and they never will exist... They are just your convenient fictions or prejudices... Furthermore, there definitely is not utterly abstract totality to which you blindly refer and abstractly project. There is no static, objective, absolute, truly apprehended or comprehended whole earth (which includes you), this is just your misconstrued delusion. Jason what of? what of? On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean any of it is true. It's not a matter of true or false, but a matter of opinion whether one considers the whole of reality to be God or not. We can all agree reality exists, perhaps we disagree on its extent or its true form, but its up to you what you whether you consider it God. It seems to me that you are stringing together all these statements into some kind of evidence or support for a position... a faith. Faith in the existence of reality does not require a very big leap of faith. One has to understand the genealogy of such notions. one needs a psychoanalysis or psycho-analytic reductionism. I'm not really sure what Bruno means by computational theory of mind All that is meant is that the mind is a machine, which can be emulated without requiring an infinite amount of memory or work. and its consequences, whether real or imaginary... but, it seems to me that you are building a kind of argument by authority... i.e. all these different people agree on these points therefore there must be something to them. What argument do you presume me to be making? I don't think Bruno has really articulated to us his theology... I don't think he has any real system. On Jul 6, 11:07 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's consequence are not that original. Bruno On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: The supreme God Brahman is defined as: the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta espouses monism. The closest interpretation of the term can be found i -- 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:05 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Is it important what is in my mind when I use the words? I don't have to hold the whole earth or the whole solar system in my head for them to exist. I think your playing language games... What is this whole earth or whole solar system to which you confidently refer? I assert they don't exist, they never have existed, and they never will exist... They are just your convenient fictions or prejudices... What do you believe in then? I thought it was the phenomenal world, but the above sounds like immaterialism or solipsism. Furthermore, there definitely is not utterly abstract totality to which you blindly refer and abstractly project. I agree they are concrete. However, some are prejeudced and call the parts of reality they cannot see abstract. Secondly, I do not blindly accept the totality, but rather I've found it to be the most simple, and scientific explanation of the fine tuning of the universe. It has the fewest assumptions of any claimed theory of everything, and it is consistent with all observations (so far as I have been able to ascertain), thus it is the preferred theory according to Ockham's razor. For what evidence or reason do you postulate the only universe that exists is the one you happen to be in? Is this not a little chauvinistic? There is no static, objective, absolute, truly apprehended or comprehended whole earth (which includes you), this is just your misconstrued delusion. Earth is my delusion? Please provide some more explanation or justification for what you mean by this. Thanks, 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
What do you believe in then? I thought it was the phenomenal world, but the above sounds like immaterialism or solipsism. I am neither a immaterialist nor a solipsist... don't try to conveniently label me. I wouldn't call myself a phenomenalist per se. but if anything I highly value the human experience in the aesthetical and existential sense as far superior or more valuable and real (to me) relative to all cosmological view-points i think any totalizing view-point essentially kills actual existence it snuffs it right out obscures it out of sight devalues it. We kill the earth, to find nothingness in the heavens. (this is debatable, and we can continue debating) For what evidence or reason do you postulate the only universe that exists is the one you happen to be in? Is this not a little chauvinistic? The only thing that matters is my personal experience as a mortal local being and the value I derive from it not some far off speculative pseudo-conception or mind-game mind-games are cool, I just don't take them that seriously... or at least not the particular one you presented. Earth is my delusion? Please provide some more explanation or justification for what you mean by this. I mean there is no Earth you are aware of that is absolutely apprehended and comprehended in some fixed and objective and ultimate form all you have is your own puny and distorted idea or point-of-view about something unknowable. In other words, no one has actually seen the whole earth and no one ever will. Perhaps Gorgias was in some way right, when he asserted: 1. Nothing exists; 2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and 3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others. 4. Even if it can be communicated, there is no incentive to do so. I think this is very interesting and not entirely empty. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
so you see you are deluding yourself if you think you are apprehending anything you could call a whole earth there is no such thing you are apprehending nothing but your prejudicial delusion. You may say it exists in principal but I would go on to ask you how you know that and how you would prove that... I would also ask you -what- you know and -what- it is you are asserting exists.. furthermore, I would remind you that you misapprehend or fail to apprehend this whole earth you postulate as existing 'in principal' and that you never will. and finally I will say that your in principle = your misapprehension... and that if anything exists outside of that it cannot be known and consequently nothing ever will be able to rightly be called a whole earth so this whole earth of yours amounts to nothing more then a misconstrued and superficial phantom of your imagination. If no whole earth can be known... then the concept makes no sense and has no value. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:23 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: What do you believe in then? I thought it was the phenomenal world, but the above sounds like immaterialism or solipsism. I am neither a immaterialist nor a solipsist... don't try to conveniently label me. I wouldn't call myself a phenomenalist per se. but if anything I highly value the human experience in the aesthetical and existential sense as far superior or more valuable and real (to me) relative to all cosmological view-points i think any totalizing view-point essentially kills actual existence it snuffs it right out obscures it out of sight devalues it. We kill the earth, to find nothingness in the heavens. (this is debatable, and we can continue debating) For what evidence or reason do you postulate the only universe that exists is the one you happen to be in? Is this not a little chauvinistic? The only thing that matters is my personal experience as a mortal local being and the value I derive from it not some far off speculative pseudo-conception or mind-game mind-games are cool, I just don't take them that seriously... or at least not the particular one you presented. Earth is my delusion? Please provide some more explanation or justification for what you mean by this. I mean there is no Earth you are aware of that is absolutely apprehended and comprehended in some fixed and objective and ultimate form all you have is your own puny and distorted idea or point-of-view about something unknowable. In other words, no one has actually seen the whole earth and no one ever will. Perhaps Gorgias was in some way right, when he asserted: 1. Nothing exists; 2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and 3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others. 4. Even if it can be communicated, there is no incentive to do so. I think this is very interesting and not entirely empty. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
lol, I'm sure everyone has heard this too many times but it is one of those things that most people seem to humbly agree about... and it still sounds funny and interesting any thoughts?: something unknown is doing something unknown (sir arthur edington)_ On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think physics is a dead end. I think they know that. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: John M when I read your writing I see how it is wise, in the tradition of Nagarjuna to make no assertions at all otherwise you get caught up in the contradictions, internal inconcistencies, ironies, and absurdities your writing shows above. I think Bruno is right to critique absolute materialism. it just occurred to me today that the concept of materialism is ultimately self-contradictory, logically impossible, and when you get right down to it: absurd. I think it is on the wrong track. what the right track is i don't know. I think Bruno is right, we are following in Aristotle's footsteps. We are looking for a universal implicit in the complexity of the particulars we are trying to reduce the complexity of things to a universal simplex/material substratum that somehow is a material' ground that is either acausal or we-don't-know-what... Berkeley famously showed that the concept of materialism is a highly/overly abstract generalization. And in our reductionism we effectively dematerialize or metaphysicalize or transcendentalize our notions of matter, solidity, substantiality, space, thingness, identity of things. etc. what is matter? I mean what is it really, even just definitionally. i think our notion of the origination (from nothing) and the evolution of matter from some fundamental materiality and elementary mechanical state of affairs or something is nonsensical, unprovable, and when attempted to be conceived comes off as ridiculous. I am starting to see a value in a Monadology-ish kind of thing the problem is, how would one prove it or experience it? I am having a hard time expressing my thoughts right now. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
John M on second examination not bad. I need to look over it again though and see if I can reply. On Jul 7, 8:29 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Friends: Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc. * God? Truth? Reality? even: 'physical world' - goes on and on. Our thoughts (human)? imagination? experiential vs. experiential (Incl. Kim's French explanation) are un-finishable qualms online. Bruno involves himself based on his professional knowledge in arithmetic (human?) logic and a long standing UNBROKEN line of research. I change. I KNOW (in my agnostic worldview - G) that there is an info-transfer into 'us' from the limitless complexity (I base it on history, comparing the epistemic enrichment over long periods of human development) what we include into our mini-solipsism about the world. It all is* adjusted* by our genetic tool-structure (brain-function) modified by our so far accepted experience (in memory?) plus other factors we are not aware of. So it all IS a personalized view of the 'world' (existence, totality, wholeness, limitless complexity - you name it) unique for each of us as the immune system, DNA, or fingerprint. We SHARE a lot according to cultural bases and so it becomes OUR VIEW of the world (call it: ongoing conventional science). Expressed as *'our reality'*: it is a *PERCEIVED*one. A figment. During our ages of early mental development when phenomena 'reached us' without proper explanatory base-knowledge (not excluded the 'wisdom' of the Old Greeks and Hindus) the speculation was not restricted by factual limitations, so the smart thinkers could be really SMART, inventive and surprising. There was always a trend to explain which led to the invention of explanations, believed and introduced into science. They staid - even modified. People made systems of their belief - scientific, religious, - and established their worldview accordingly. They are wrong, - I did the same, but I am right -- The position of all of us. Monotheists have the hard time to dismiss the hateful acts of god and keep the Good Lord image. Polytheists create separate gods for the bad deeds. Believers (the faithful) take the hearsay and formulate their systems accordingly. In the Crusades the Christians prayed to Christ (God) to kill the unfaithful, the Muslims to Allah, to kill the infidels. The Israelites asked The God of Israel to kill the opponents, the Greeks, Vikings, Germanic etc. applied to specific 'gods' to favor THEIR goals. One side wins, one is at a loss, one 'hero' survives, another dies, all have prayed religiously. In science the theories fight, all of them 'believed' to be true by devoted scientists - based on reputable people who taught them. We have 'humanly' devised ideas (from religion through sciences to math,) and logic to serve our thinking capabilities. Our ideas do not restrict Nature (the world) but gives some comfort to those who seek the TRUTH. Everybody in all directions. Vocabularies are composed according to the belief systems and the diverse meanings do not match: every system proves it's own vocabulary and denies the rest of them. Finally a word on the Theory(s?) of Everything: Since we get more and more from the still unknown unlimited complexity of the totality and the old inventories proved incomplete even in today's knowledge, we may not claim to know what everything' means, eo ipso we cannot make theories on unknowable. I find it a game to speak even within the physical segment - not only with past discoveries like electricity, radioactivity, etc., but 'known' unknowable like gravitation, mass, matter etc. Nobody knows, what may be the next epistemic 'surprise' emerging in our future? Peace John M On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. But would God not know what it is like to be you? To know that would require forgetting, at least temporarily, one is God. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Actually John, the more I read it the more I feel for it but some seeming issues: there is an info-transfer into 'us' from the limitless complexity you say information-transfer, or we can rephrase it as information processing or information reception etc. But I think information is a metaphor for we know not what. I take issue with this term information I think it is a blank cover for what is obviously unknown. Are you not that same information, is not your information processing machine apart of that same informational complexity flux according to your seeming definition. and is not this view of limitless complexity kind of extremely vague and indeterminate it doesn't give us many attributes, characteristics, definitions, comprehensive clarifications, generalized explications, marks it doesn't really tell us anything, it is extremely undescriptive what is this information? can you more definitely and clearly describe it? What of this limitless complexity? any further attributes or designations? Is that not essentially a blank picture? a generic label that reveals nothing isn't all you are saying by that term: incalculable distinctions well what of it, can you please tell us more about your inability to calculate all the distinctions you can make and all the things you can give a name to? (I base it on history, comparing the epistemic enrichment over long periods of human development) what we include into our mini-solipsism about the world. Once again I want to point out that we are the world and the world is us. There are not two truly individual, separate, and independent entities. So if it is about the world it has to be about the subjective side too as apart of one thing (for lack of a better word), right? Furthermore, you say you base it on history that is problematic no? History is not something you are in possession of in any comprehensive and complete sense who knows how much of history is made up of unknown happenings, unrecorded events, etc. Plus there is the field of the Philosophy of History where people have different views on history and how it is structured and how it moves and what it includes and what it can no and can't know and so on History is an extremely complex and extremely impoverished subject. we must be very agnostic about history... rather then assume we know it all. History is a philosophical problem... perhaps we only breach the surface of it. Yes, let us be very humble in regards to our conception of history and all that could possibly entail and mean to us. Right? So it all IS a personalized view of the 'world' (existence, totality, wholeness, limitless complexity - you name it) unique for each of us as the immune system, DNA, or fingerprint. I wonder why we are so interested in forming a universal view or theory of everything to me it seems like its similar to the Ancients archetypal desire for a Cosmic Vision, the stuff of myth, like in the Bhagavad-Gita. It seems to my mind that we are overstepping our boundaries when we have such grandiose aspirations we are presupposing the goal before we get their, we have some vague intimation or notion of what we're seeking but it may turn out to be a unrealizable dream. I don't know. It seems like we are too in our heads like we hallucinate the universe like a drug trip. hmm... yeah, I don't really know what exists and what doesn't exist. is existence just our ability to find or make new distinctions? Does it just have to do with finding more forces or something and figuring out how they all relate or tie together or something? Attempting some systematization of things outside of us and things inside of us? Is existence just whatever we can clearly distinguish... just a collection of names and things and perceptible distinctions and qualities and behaviors and descriptions and relationships/patterns/ discernible structures and some overview systematization of it all into a integral whole? Does it include all perceptible phenomena, including social science and the totality of human nature? When we use the word totality or wholeness we need to be clear about what totality or what whole... what falls under our purview. for example. do you mean understanding or knowing all that can be known in whatever field or possible division we can make such as human beings animals plants. terrestrial phenomena astronomical phenomena. subjectivity. doesn't this kind of tyrannical total knowledge in every field or division we can make seem kind of boring or pointless or perhaps impossible.. why know it all? won't that kill it? I hope you can be clear as possible in distinguishing for us what is included in your vision of all things. and give us some major categories, species, distinctions, divisions and subdivisions I wonder how much is all around us and in us that we are not aware of must this only be
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Is metaphysics merely a notion that is the reversal or antithesis of the world as we know it? Instead of change: changelesness. Instead of diversity or multiplicity: unity. Instead of instability: stability Instead of of birth and death: immortality. Instead of complexity: simplicity. Instead of temporality: permanence, endurance. Instead of corruptible: incorruptible. Instead of evil: all good. Instead of pieces of beauty: supreme beauty. Instead of determinism, slavery, necessity, need, compulsion: freedom, liberation. Instead of limitation: infinity Instead of limited and flawed knowing: perfect all-knowing. Instead of limitation in time/space: omnipresent Instead of relative impotence: omnipotence Instead of stained with suffering: all-bliss Instead of darkness: all light. etc. etc. it seems like metaphysics is the opposite of the world as we know it. Ah, us imaginative and idealistic poor humans! -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
in fact, religion/spirituality/mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more then the exact opposite of the truth. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:42 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: religion or metaphysics is the idealistic tradition that asserts that there is an ultimate reality that is the reverse opposite of our present reality. Wishful thinking? -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
religion or metaphysics is the idealistic tradition that asserts that there is an ultimate reality that is the reverse opposite of our present reality. Wishful thinking? -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
lol, you got me there. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/7/2011 10:43 PM, B Soroud wrote: in fact, religion/spirituality/**mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more then the exact opposite of the truth. Well then all we have to do is take it's negation and we'll have the truth. :-) 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Is it possible that Bruno is a mutant that is somehow a fusion of hyper-rationality and insanity? Is Bruno a mad-scientist? hehe. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you got me there. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/7/2011 10:43 PM, B Soroud wrote: in fact, religion/spirituality/**mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more then the exact opposite of the truth. Well then all we have to do is take it's negation and we'll have the truth. :-) 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's consequence are not that original. Bruno On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: The supreme God Brahman is defined as: the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta espouses monism. The closest interpretation of the term can be found in the Taittiriya Upanishad (II.1) where Brahman is described as satyam jnanam anantam brahman (Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity). Thus, Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and is the only thing that exists according to Shankara. It is defined as unknowable and Satchitananda (Truth-Consciousness- Bliss). Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman. The Hindu pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be only higher manifestations of Brahman. For this reason, ekam sat (Truth is one), and all is Brahman. From the Brahma Samhita: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth. Regardinga Maya: In most of Hinduism and Transcendentalism, all matter is believed to be an illusion called Maya, blinding us from knowing the truth. Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya gets destroyed for a person when they perceive Brahman with transcendental knowledge. The concept of Brahman as the single formless transcendent 'being of absolute existence' that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe, is nearly identical to that of YHWH, the concept of 'God' in Judaism. The term YHWH comes from the Semitic root הוה 'howa', to exist, and is connected with something that is self-sustaining or self-existent, is the cause of all existence, and the totality of the phenomenal universe that brings everything into being. Among the 99 names of God in Islam: Al-Wāsi' The Vast, The All-Embracing, The Omnipresent, The Boundless Al-Ḥaqq The Truth, The Real Al-Wāḥid The One, The Unique Al-'Aḥad The Unity, The Indivisible Aṣ-Ṣamad The Eternal, The Absolute, The Self-Sufficient Al-Bāqīy The Immutable, The Infinite, The Everlasting Some of the names of Krishna: Achala - Still Lord Parabrahmana - The Supreme Absolute Truth Sanatana - The Eternal Lord Sarvajana - Omniscient Lord The root Mantra of the Sikh religion begins: there is one creator, whose name is truth... In Buddhism: Samantabhadra Buddha declares of itself: I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am the core because I contain all phenomena. I am the seed because I give birth to everything. I am the cause because all comes from me. I am the trunk because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am the foundation because all abides in me. I am called the root because I am everything. Quotes: Geometry existed before the creation, it is co-eternal with the mind of God, Geometry provided god with a model for creation, Geometry is God himself. -- Kepler To all of us who hold the Christian belief that God is truth, anything that is true is a fact about God, and mathematics is a branch of theology. -- Hilda Phoebe Hudson The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. -- Euclid I would say with those who say ‘God is Love’, God is Love. But deep down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is Truth above all. If it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that God is Truth. Two years ago I went a step further and said that Truth is God. You will see the fine distinction between the two statements, ‘God is Truth’ and ‘Truth is God’. I came to that conclusion after a continuous and relentless search after truth which began fifty years ago. I then found that the
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:36, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. But would God not know what it is like to be you? To know that would require forgetting, at least temporarily, one is God. I guess Kim was alluding to some conception of God which makes it omniscient. In a book on incompleteness, Grim argued rather convincingly (imo) that just omniscience is already inconsistent. I like very much the idea that we are God, but have forget it. I have some uneasiness with Theillard de Chardin, but I like when he said that ... we are not human beings having divine experiences, but we are divine beings having human experiences. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com mailto:bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: It's a matter of taste usually followed by a lecture on what God demands of you. When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), But we don't know the whole of that which exists and we shouldn't conceive of the whole of that which exists as external to us our outside of us, as out their somewhere we are confused and included in the whole of that which exists whatever in the world that or it or I is. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: It's a matter of taste usually followed by a lecture on what God demands of you. When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole.. Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this whole? perhaps this whole is our vague and confused invention or a mere speculative inquiry. in your notion of the whole the same age-old problems arise.. the problem of unity and diversity... of change and changelesness What is universal and invariable about your whole... what is enduring about your whole? what is essential about your whole? and are these just matters, essences, forces? and we just the temporary products and observers or deducers of them? THOUGHT is the most difficult thing in the world Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not (Protagoras) On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), But we don't know the whole of that which exists and we shouldn't conceive of the whole of that which exists as external to us our outside of us, as out their somewhere we are confused and included in the whole of that which exists whatever in the world that or it or I is. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: It's a matter of taste usually followed by a lecture on what God demands of you. When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole.. Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this whole? perhaps this whole is our vague and confused invention or a mere speculative inquiry. in your notion of the whole the same age-old problems arise.. the problem of unity and diversity... of change and changelesness What is universal and invariable about your whole... what is enduring about your whole? what is essential about your whole? and are these just matters, essences, forces? and we just the temporary products and observers or deducers of them? THOUGHT is the most difficult thing in the world Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not (Protagoras) On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), But we don't know the whole of that which exists and we shouldn't conceive of the whole of that which exists as external to us our outside of us, as out their somewhere we are confused and included in the whole of that which exists whatever in the world that or it or I is. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: It's a matter of taste usually followed by a lecture on what God demands of you. When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
but its hard to abandon this group because this is the only group of super high-quality thinkers I've actually come across on the net. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole.. Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this whole? perhaps this whole is our vague and confused invention or a mere speculative inquiry. in your notion of the whole the same age-old problems arise.. the problem of unity and diversity... of change and changelesness What is universal and invariable about your whole... what is enduring about your whole? what is essential about your whole? and are these just matters, essences, forces? and we just the temporary products and observers or deducers of them? THOUGHT is the most difficult thing in the world Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not (Protagoras) On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), But we don't know the whole of that which exists and we shouldn't conceive of the whole of that which exists as external to us our outside of us, as out their somewhere we are confused and included in the whole of that which exists whatever in the world that or it or I is. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: It's a matter of taste usually followed by a lecture on what God demands of you. When someone tells me about God I reach for my gun. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.comwrote: Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean any of it is true. It's not a matter of true or false, but a matter of opinion whether one considers the whole of reality to be God or not. We can all agree reality exists, perhaps we disagree on its extent or its true form, but its up to you what you whether you consider it God. It seems to me that you are stringing together all these statements into some kind of evidence or support for a position... a faith. Faith in the existence of reality does not require a very big leap of faith. One has to understand the genealogy of such notions. one needs a psychoanalysis or psycho-analytic reductionism. I'm not really sure what Bruno means by computational theory of mind All that is meant is that the mind is a machine, which can be emulated without requiring an infinite amount of memory or work. and its consequences, whether real or imaginary... but, it seems to me that you are building a kind of argument by authority... i.e. all these different people agree on these points therefore there must be something to them. What argument do you presume me to be making? I don't think Bruno has really articulated to us his theology... I don't think he has any real system. On Jul 6, 11:07 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's consequence are not that original. Bruno On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: The supreme God Brahman is defined as: the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta espouses monism. The closest interpretation of the term can be found in the Taittiriya Upanishad (II.1) where Brahman is described as satyam jnanam anantam brahman (Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity). Thus, Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and is the only thing that exists according to Shankara. It is defined as unknowable and Satchitananda (Truth-Consciousness- Bliss). Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman. The Hindu pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be only higher manifestations of Brahman. For this reason, ekam sat (Truth is one), and all is Brahman. From the Brahma Samhita: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth. Regardinga Maya: In most of Hinduism and Transcendentalism, all matter is believed to be an illusion called Maya, blinding us from knowing the truth. Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya gets destroyed for a person when they perceive Brahman with transcendental knowledge. The concept of Brahman as the single formless transcendent 'being of absolute existence' that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe, is nearly identical to that of YHWH, the concept of 'God' in Judaism. The term YHWH comes from the Semitic root הוה 'howa', to exist, and is connected with something that is self-sustaining or self-existent, is the cause of all existence, and the totality of the phenomenal universe that brings everything into being. Among the 99 names of God in Islam: Al-Wāsi' The Vast, The All-Embracing, The Omnipresent, The Boundless Al-Ḥaqq The Truth, The Real Al-Wāḥid The One, The Unique Al-'Aḥad The Unity, The Indivisible Aṣ-Ṣamad The Eternal, The Absolute, The Self-Sufficient Al-Bāqīy The Immutable, The Infinite, The Everlasting Some of the names of Krishna: Achala - Still Lord Parabrahmana - The Supreme Absolute Truth Sanatana - The Eternal Lord Sarvajana - Omniscient Lord The root Mantra of the Sikh religion begins: there is one creator, whose name is truth... In Buddhism: Samantabhadra Buddha
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Jason, you have this supposed conception of the whole of reality, when you utter such words... what appears in your mind? I would assert: next to nothing. Can you give us your system that explicates your notion of the whole of reality I want to get at your picture of the whole of reality and if you don't have one well then what of? what of? On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean any of it is true. It's not a matter of true or false, but a matter of opinion whether one considers the whole of reality to be God or not. We can all agree reality exists, perhaps we disagree on its extent or its true form, but its up to you what you whether you consider it God. It seems to me that you are stringing together all these statements into some kind of evidence or support for a position... a faith. Faith in the existence of reality does not require a very big leap of faith. One has to understand the genealogy of such notions. one needs a psychoanalysis or psycho-analytic reductionism. I'm not really sure what Bruno means by computational theory of mind All that is meant is that the mind is a machine, which can be emulated without requiring an infinite amount of memory or work. and its consequences, whether real or imaginary... but, it seems to me that you are building a kind of argument by authority... i.e. all these different people agree on these points therefore there must be something to them. What argument do you presume me to be making? I don't think Bruno has really articulated to us his theology... I don't think he has any real system. On Jul 6, 11:07 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's consequence are not that original. Bruno On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: The supreme God Brahman is defined as: the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta espouses monism. The closest interpretation of the term can be found in the Taittiriya Upanishad (II.1) where Brahman is described as satyam jnanam anantam brahman (Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity). Thus, Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and is the only thing that exists according to Shankara. It is defined as unknowable and Satchitananda (Truth-Consciousness- Bliss). Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman. The Hindu pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be only higher manifestations of Brahman. For this reason, ekam sat (Truth is one), and all is Brahman. From the Brahma Samhita: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth. Regardinga Maya: In most of Hinduism and Transcendentalism, all matter is believed to be an illusion called Maya, blinding us from knowing the truth. Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya gets destroyed for a person when they perceive Brahman with transcendental knowledge. The concept of Brahman as the single formless transcendent 'being of absolute existence' that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe, is nearly identical to that of YHWH, the concept of 'God' in Judaism. The term YHWH comes from the Semitic root הוה 'howa', to exist, and is connected with something that is self-sustaining or self-existent, is the cause of all existence, and the totality of the phenomenal universe that brings everything into being. Among the 99 names of God in Islam: Al-Wāsi' The Vast, The All-Embracing, The Omnipresent, The Boundless Al-Ḥaqq The Truth, The Real Al-Wāḥid The One, The Unique Al-'Aḥad The
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:17, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable. 1) God is dead That's Nietsche. It is just propaganda. 2) God is reborn - as theoretical physics No. God = truth = reality. If the basic ontology is a physical reality, then God = physical reality (Aristotle). I follow Hirschberger analysis of Plato. God is just truth by definition. It is coherent with the fact that truth, for a machine , is not nameable. You cannot argue against applied logic in a theoretical field by making literary puns. Then the whole point is that computer science, that is really number theory, is the theory. Not theoretical physics. Brunoism: old wine in new bottles. OK. The new bottle is Church thesis, the old wine is the greek pre- christian free-thinking in theology. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:50, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Bruno says: But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. can this supposed something behind our observations be brought into the field of observation? Can it be observed? No it cannot. But it can be indirectly inferred, like quark, black hole, superposition states, etc. If not, forget about this purely logical form. So you just assume that real = observable. reality is WYSIWYG. No problem. It is equivalent with saying that comp is false, and you are just begging the question. Bruno On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:53, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it sounds like Bruno is ontologizing mathematics rather then seeing it as merely a way of knowing or a tool for organizing, classifying, accounting for, and navigating space-time. I assume that Goldbach conjecture is true or false independently of me. If you assume the contrary, explain me the dependence, and give me your theory. I am not ontologizing mathematics, I am just showing that mechanism deontologizes physics. Bruno On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to see what happens. People seems to have the same reluctance to let math enter the subject than the old naturalists. Now, the only way for the numbers to win the measure problem is by self-multiplication, and coherent multiplication of populations,
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 05 Jul 2011, at 00:56, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Rex have you studied Spinoza's notion that freedom is the recognition of necessity? If you haven't read Spinoza I would recommend him on this free will/determinism issue. That is a good point. I did forget Spinoza saw it. Bruno On Jun 9, 8:00 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your while trying to understand. I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting moscow-washington thing, right? In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from the current state that represents me. Each of these paths looks like a possible future from my subjective standpoint. But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not futures they're a series of nows. So, subjectively, I have the illusion of an undetermined future. But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is objectively actualized. So how does this prove what I said false? All those static futures are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way. Even if we say that what constitutes me is a single unbranched path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully determined) future. This is an argument against any determinist theory, or any block- universe theory. It is an argument again compatibilist theory of free will, and an argument against science in general, not just the mechanist hypothesis. Hard determinism is incompatible with science in general? ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as incompatible with science or scientific attitude. I'm not arguing against determinism. I'm fine with determinism and it's consequences. But third person determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. Determinism doesn't prevent your redefined version of free will, which of course isn't free will at all - but rather a psychological coping mechanism disguised as a reasonable position. BUT...I didn't say third person determinism. I said hard determinism...the alternative to the soft determinism of compatibilism. People believing that determinism per se makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. No, people who believe that determinism is incompatible with free will have a firm understanding of the meaning of both determinism and free will. But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? I'm fine with hard determinism. I am a hard determinist...which is the position that determinism is incompatible with free will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:30, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. Consciousness. Not self-consciousness. the self is already a doubtable construct. You cannot doubt consciousness, because doubting genuinely needs to be conscious. Well, many understand this. Then, like Descartes, we can doubt everything else, including the existence of numbers, of people, etc. But we can lmake assumption and reason from them. Bruno something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its existence and how is this questionable being distinct from Being as such? You can name-call whatever you want, and you can assert unity... you can make whatever assertions you want in regards to a something no one denies something is. but no one says they know what that Something is, or how it is distinct or different from the something that we are. there is us, and there is IT two somethings one Big and the other small what is the difference... and how can we determine the difference if we know next to nothing in regards to either. so I want to say X and x is but i want to also show us that in fact x is (being) is or in another words is (being) is an x. X = X but that tells us nothing. some people assert a distinction between consciousness and existence... and say that you can't have one without the other but don't really define the distinction or they simply claim that they are identical well that doesn't really help us. so rather then I AM... i must say Something is... which is like say being is unknown or is = x well we already knew that! On Jun 9, 10:11 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. 'making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did.' Right. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition of freedom is that they must have been able to have done otherwise. This alone isn’t sufficient, because quantum randomness (in a non-block context) also makes it possible that they could have done otherwise - but random decisions aren't free either. You say it is impossible that anyone could have done otherwise from what they did. Well what determined what they did? Their mind? Their biology? Their chemistry? The physics of the subatomic motions of the particles in their brain? I don’t think it matters in a “block” context, does it? To say the mind is not doing any decision making because its behavior can be explained at a level where the mind's operation cannot be understood, is like saying a computer is not computing or a car is not driving, because if you look at a computer or a car at a low enough level you see only particles moving in accordance with various forces applied to them. The ability to make decisions is ubiquitous. Ants, wasps, lizards, turtles, mice, dogs - whatever. They can all be said to make decisions. Do ants have free will? Even computers can be said to make decisions...and saying that they do seems just as valid as saying that humans do. Do the computerized monitoring and control systems at nuclear power plants have free will? If they automatically decide to close some valve in response to sensor readings, are they exercising free will? You can render meaningless almost any subject by describing it at the wrong level. Wrong? What would make some level the “wrong” level and another the “right” level? If a subject *can* be described at some level (or should be describable in theory), then that has to be of some significance, doesn’t it? If human behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, just as computer behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, and just as rock behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electons - then this shared “describability” has to tell us something significant - doesn’t it? The fact that all of these things are describable at the same level, the level of quarks and electrons, surely this means something. If humans could *not* be described at the level of quarks and electrons, but computers could, *that* would definitely tell us something significant, wouldn’t it? You might as well say there is no meaningful difference between a cat and a rock, since they
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:41, B Soroud wrote: in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot claim that I am... I distinguish the first person I from the third person I. The first is not doubtable (without feeling lying to myself). the second is. Chidren can get this by themselves at the age of seven. They often get the blues. that is normal. We can feel being alone, but then we can also make some leap of faith, in the other, in something. Bruno being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0 in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert something and nothing simultaneously. so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you wouldn't have to make the assertion. It is your logical construction and nothing more. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its existence and how is this questionable being distinct from Being as such? You can name-call whatever you want, and you can assert unity... you can make whatever assertions you want in regards to a something no one denies something is. but no one says they know what that Something is, or how it is distinct or different from the something that we are. there is us, and there is IT two somethings one Big and the other small what is the difference... and how can we determine the difference if we know next to nothing in regards to either. so I want to say X and x is but i want to also show us that in fact x is (being) is or in another words is (being) is an x. X = X but that tells us nothing. some people assert a distinction between consciousness and existence... and say that you can't have one without the other but don't really define the distinction or they simply claim that they are identical well that doesn't really help us. so rather then I AM... i must say Something is... which is like say being is unknown or is = x well we already knew that! On Jun 9, 10:11 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. 'making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did.' Right. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition of freedom is that they must have been able to have done otherwise. This alone isn’t sufficient, because quantum randomness (in a non-block context) also makes it possible that they could have done otherwise - but random decisions aren't free either. You say it is impossible that anyone could have done otherwise from what they did. Well what determined what they did? Their mind? Their biology? Their chemistry? The physics of the subatomic motions of the particles in their brain? I don’t think it matters in a “block” context, does it? To say the mind is not doing any decision making because its behavior can be explained at a level where the mind's operation cannot be understood, is like saying a computer is not computing or a car is not driving, because if you look at a computer or a car at a low enough level you see only particles moving in accordance with various forces applied to them. The ability to make decisions is ubiquitous. Ants, wasps, lizards, turtles, mice, dogs - whatever. They can all be said to make decisions. Do ants have free will? Even computers can be said to make decisions...and saying that they do seems just as valid as saying that humans do. Do the computerized monitoring and control systems at nuclear power plants have free will? If they automatically decide to close some valve in response to sensor readings, are they exercising free will? You can render meaningless almost any subject by describing it at the wrong level. Wrong? What would make some level the “wrong” level and another the “right” level? If a subject *can* be described at some level (or should be describable in theory), then that has to be of some significance, doesn’t it? If human behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, just as computer behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, and just as rock behavior ought to be describable at the level of
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 05 Jul 2011, at 05:49, B Soroud wrote: REx: Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume… using it…. It must have started with either Kant or Hegel… Hegel for sure. We use to use the word soul or spirit, now we like using the word consciousness… it has become very popular. .. apparently etymologically it is related with to know or knowing…. But like I said… in so far as we think of “consciousness” or define “consciousness” it instantly becomes a thought or object of knowledge and not the real thing. That confirms BDt - ~Dt. (For those who have studied a little bit the modal logic G and G*). Actually consciousness is closer to the notion of truth, which cannot even be expressed by the machine, unlike consistency which can be expressed but not proved. Bruno On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless absurdities Ha! Well, we all have our off days... We can say that we have information about what we are aware of...but that is not the same as saying that awareness *is* information. Information is a difference that makes a difference. But it has to make a difference *to* someone. Awareness may very well be information, unless you want to make up a piece of information which masquerades as the entity behind information. You say information has to make a difference to someone... very well, but that doesn't get you out of the problem of the enigma-identity of this supposed someone that you think must be at the root of information. Well, I can see how my use of the term “someone” might lead to confusion. However, I didn’t intend to imply the existence of some “supra-experiential” entity. My intended point was that information isn’t something that exists separately from, or more fundamentally than conscious experience. Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. Information is observer-relative. Observers aren’t information- relative. Don't you see your observer is information! Well...no. I don’t see that. Though perhaps we’re using different definitions of “information”. Moving beyond the notion of a observer... I would even claim that observation isn't occurring, neither as a act or process or object or event there is merely the observed. There is merely experience. Representation depends on me. I don’t depend on representation. Wrong. You do depend on representation... but pseudo- representation, you depend on a pseudo-representation or a non-representational invented pseudo-representation. Psuedo-representation? Representation is something you do, not something that you are. Well then what are you! Consciousness. Rex -- 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.
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? I assume Robinson arithmetic, like all scientists. Nothing less, and surpringly (that is the result) we cannot need anything more, once we take the mechanist hypothesis seriously enough (like when saying yes to a digitalist surgeon). If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination, thought, and figures? Yes. They are usually conceive in that way. Bruno On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to see what happens. People seems to have the same
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:17, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable. 1) God is dead That's Nietsche. It is just propaganda. 2) God is reborn - as theoretical physics No. God = truth = reality. If the basic ontology is a physical reality, then God = physical reality (Aristotle). I follow Hirschberger analysis of Plato. God is just truth by definition. It is coherent with the fact that truth, for a machine , is not nameable. You cannot argue against applied logic in a theoretical field by making literary puns. Then the whole point is that computer science, that is really number theory, is the theory. Not theoretical physics. Brunoism: old wine in new bottles. OK. The new bottle is Church thesis, the old wine is the greek pre-christian free-thinking in theology. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
What do you mean by God? By God I mean anything that is expedient for me to mean by it. That does not work. yes, with comp, suicide does no more guaranty you escape reality. The atheist conception of death appears as ... wishful thinking. So you mean I'm stuck in Brunoland forever? You should right apocalyptic an dystopian sci-fi books If death didn't exist, we would have to invent it. Once a theology is a science, you have the moral duty to doubt it, and you cannot impose to any one. lol, I like this. Yes, it is my moral perogative to doubt reality-view (in the abstract sense) Honestly... I have never read your work... it is over my head and I reject it in principle... because it goes 100% counter to my intuition and good sense (in so far as I understand it from the things you seem to say) Frankly I don't want to know it because from what I hear, it sounds ridiculous! If it didn't sound so outright ridiculous I might go deeper into it. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Chidren can get this by themselves at the age of seven. Bruno, are you or have you ever been a member of the Theosophist party! On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:41, B Soroud wrote: in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot claim that I am... I distinguish the first person I from the third person I. The first is not doubtable (without feeling lying to myself). the second is. Chidren can get this by themselves at the age of seven. They often get the blues. that is normal. We can feel being alone, but then we can also make some leap of faith, in the other, in something. Bruno being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0 in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert something and nothing simultaneously. so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you wouldn't have to make the assertion. It is your logical construction and nothing more. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its existence and how is this questionable being distinct from Being as such? You can name-call whatever you want, and you can assert unity... you can make whatever assertions you want in regards to a something no one denies something is. but no one says they know what that Something is, or how it is distinct or different from the something that we are. there is us, and there is IT two somethings one Big and the other small what is the difference... and how can we determine the difference if we know next to nothing in regards to either. so I want to say X and x is but i want to also show us that in fact x is (being) is or in another words is (being) is an x. X = X but that tells us nothing. some people assert a distinction between consciousness and existence... and say that you can't have one without the other but don't really define the distinction or they simply claim that they are identical well that doesn't really help us. so rather then I AM... i must say Something is... which is like say being is unknown or is = x well we already knew that! On Jun 9, 10:11 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. 'making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did.' Right. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition of freedom is that they must have been able to have done otherwise. This alone isn’t sufficient, because quantum randomness (in a non-block context) also makes it possible that they could have done otherwise - but random decisions aren't free either. You say it is impossible that anyone could have done otherwise from what they did. Well what determined what they did? Their mind? Their biology? Their chemistry? The physics of the subatomic motions of the particles in their brain? I don’t think it matters in a “block” context, does it? To say the mind is not doing any decision making because its behavior can be explained at a level where the mind's operation cannot be understood, is like saying a computer is not computing or a car is not driving, because if you look at a computer or a car at a low enough level you see only particles moving in accordance with various forces applied to them. The ability to make decisions is ubiquitous. Ants, wasps, lizards, turtles, mice, dogs - whatever. They can all be said to make decisions. Do ants have free will? Even computers can be said to make decisions...and saying that they do seems just as valid as saying that humans do. Do the computerized monitoring and control systems at nuclear power plants have free will? If they automatically decide to close some valve in response to sensor readings, are they exercising free will? You can render meaningless almost any subject by describing it at the wrong level. Wrong? What would make some level the “wrong” level and another the “right” level? If a subject *can* be described at some level (or should be describable in theory), then that has to be of some significance,
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Buddhist were aware of that trap, and insisted that you have to kill all the buddhas. I don't believe in Guru. They are always bandits stealen your money in some way. Buddhists are the ultimate sophists. Buddhists are so sophisticated and refined and esoteric in their argument by authority methods... they try to get you by claiming to be anti-authoritarian and they have this clever way of saying how the Buddha taught that you must question everything and think for yourself etc. etc. but how often have you actually seen any Buddhist do this? They try to say that they are not religion and that they are science etc. b.s. They are just a really clever religion and hierarchy and seniority and gurus are huge in almost all forms of buddhism. There is not much radical independent thinking there is no aristotle or descarte or kant in Buddhism. even with Nagarjuna he was radical logician... but he still accepted the basic devotional and religious premises. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:53, B Soroud wrote: you see Bruno, your problem is your immaterialism.. there is something unnatural about your rejection of naturalism if one claimed that one was simply the body The material constitution of the body is changed every seven years, by eating and defecating, mainly. rather then something apart from the body... that would make perfect sense... it is only when you try to pull a Descartes I love Descartes (but this is a personal intimate aparte). when you try to unnaturally seperate yourself from nature (in the Christian and Platonic and Buddhistic sense) and place yourself above nature and distanced from it. it is only then, when you try to liberate yourself from the system of nature and claim transcendence that you run into all sorts of problems and complications that are essentially unresolvable. Nature get a second life through the ... natural number. I love nature, but it is not a being, just an actor. you are your body. end of story. OK. You are just saying comp is false. You might be right. My point is only that comp leads to neoplatonism. Why do you crave immortality so much, especially this artificial fantasy of immortality you have constructed. Immortality is a logical consequence. It is a terrifying consequence. I don't like it at all. But science is not wishful thinking. I can still hope that comp is false. To be sure, there are also nice consequences. I change my mind often on the question 'so I like comp'. The intelligent man assumes he is his body perhaps this will be proved wrong someday, who knows but for now it is an intelligent axiom to assume... given where out thought is at. It is true, or false. i study the consequence of assuming it true. I am doubtful of these outsider scientists who claim Leibniz and stuff and are basically the kinds of people who get taken in by a Indian Gurus. Buddhist were aware of that trap, and insisted that you have to kill all the buddhas. I don't believe in Guru. They are always bandits stealen your money in some way. Bruno On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot claim that I am... being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0 in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert something and nothing simultaneously. so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you wouldn't have to make the assertion. It is your logical construction and nothing more. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its existence and how is this questionable being distinct from Being as such? You can name-call whatever you want, and you can assert unity... you can make whatever assertions you want in regards to a something no one denies something is. but no one says they know what that Something is, or how it is distinct or different from the something that we are. there is us, and there is IT two somethings one Big and the other small what is the difference... and how can we determine the difference if we know next to nothing in regards to either. so I want to say X and x is but i want to also show us that in fact x is (being) is or in another words is (being) is an x. X = X but that tells us nothing. some people assert a distinction between consciousness and existence... and say that you can't have one without the other but don't really define the distinction or they simply claim that
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. We must be confused, or I must be confused because you are way to clever to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to me so there must be some kind of confusion because I would respond to this by saying: the dependence is, if there was no human thought, there would be no such statement. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? I assume Robinson arithmetic, like all scientists. Nothing less, and surpringly (that is the result) we cannot need anything more, once we take the mechanist hypothesis seriously enough (like when saying yes to a digitalist surgeon). If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination, thought, and figures? Yes. They are usually conceive in that way. Bruno On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism: http://en.wikipedia.**org/wiki/Immaterialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world? You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. We must be confused, or I must be confused because you are way to clever to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to me so there must be some kind of confusion because I would respond to this by saying: the dependence is, if there was no human thought, there would be no such statement. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? I assume Robinson arithmetic, like all scientists. Nothing less, and surpringly (that is the result) we cannot need anything more, once we take the mechanist hypothesis seriously enough (like when saying yes to a digitalist surgeon). If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination, thought, and figures? Yes. They are usually conceive in that way. Bruno On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism: http://en.wikipedia.**org/wiki/Immaterialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
We are god, and outside the normal physical world of interacting relations... there is no truth or being. All metaphysics is fiction Human-created for there is no other being! We are the highest! We are making everything up! On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:48 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: How can we have a truth about a reality we can't relate to and how can there be a reality that is higher or more fundamental then us but not more conscious and intelligent and powerful then us? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world? You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. We must be confused, or I must be confused because you are way to clever to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to me so there must be some kind of confusion because I would respond to this by saying: the dependence is, if there was no human thought, there would be no such statement. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? I assume Robinson arithmetic, like all scientists. Nothing less, and surpringly (that is the result) we cannot need anything more, once we take the mechanist hypothesis seriously enough (like when saying yes to a digitalist surgeon). If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination, thought, and figures? Yes. They are usually conceive in that way. Bruno On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism: http://en.wikipedia.**org/wiki/Immaterialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
He does. Many here have been talking to him about it for years. You need to understand the distinction he is making between materialism and mechanism. When this happens in your head, your experience of trying to understand the rest of him will go better for you. Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at 11:41 AM, B Soroud wrote: Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world? You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix? -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. Bruno is saying a part of what we know cannot be proven which is basically a faith-type statement, but not allied to any dogma. If he is right then there is no metaphysics, only the correct study of physics which is mathematics and computer science - which necessarily entails an understanding of what should now be properly referred to as machine psychology or even machine theology. There is an unavoidable reversal of physics and psychology. Stay with it. I found it outrageous at the start too (way back in '97) Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at 11:51 AM, B Soroud wrote: We are god, and outside the normal physical world of interacting relations... there is no truth or being. All metaphysics is fiction Human-created for there is no other being! We are the highest! We are making everything up! -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
By the way, when Bruno writes experimental (as in non-experimental truth) he really means EXPERIENTIAL and should write non-experiential truth. In French an experiment (a scientific investigation) is une experience - but the same word applies to cover the 1st person point of view Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at 11:57 AM, Kim Jones wrote: He does. Many here have been talking to him about it for years. You need to understand the distinction he is making between materialism and mechanism. When this happens in your head, your experience of trying to understand the rest of him will go better for you. Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at 11:41 AM, B Soroud wrote: Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world? You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix? -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
I got to get myself of this damn board... its driving me crazy Bruno lives in his head and mistakes his thoughts for reality. You will never find a reality apart from the so called phenomenal world which you can either directly experience and study and appreciate and enjoy or you can live in your own abstract conceptual understanding of the world... you are a dreamer and closet mystic. peace. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: By the way, when Bruno writes experimental (as in non-experimental truth) he really means EXPERIENTIAL and should write non-experiential truth. In French an experiment (a scientific investigation) is une experience - but the same word applies to cover the 1st person point of view Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at 11:57 AM, Kim Jones wrote: He does. Many here have been talking to him about it for years. You need to understand the distinction he is making between materialism and mechanism. When this happens in your head, your experience of trying to understand the rest of him will go better for you. Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at 11:41 AM, B Soroud wrote: Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world? You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix? -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: The supreme God Brahman is defined as: the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta espouses monism. The closest interpretation of the term can be found in the Taittiriya Upanishad (II.1) where Brahman is described as satyam jnanam anantam brahman (Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity). Thus, Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and is the only thing that exists according to Shankara. It is defined as unknowable and Satchitananda (Truth-Consciousness-Bliss). Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman. The Hindu pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be only higher manifestations of Brahman. For this reason, ekam sat (Truth is one), and all is Brahman. From the Brahma Samhita: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth. Regardinga Maya: In most of Hinduism and Transcendentalism, all matter is believed to be an illusion called Maya, blinding us from knowing the truth. Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya gets destroyed for a person when they perceive Brahman with transcendental knowledge. The concept of Brahman as the single formless transcendent 'being of absolute existence' that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe, is nearly identical to that of YHWH, the concept of 'God' in Judaism. The term YHWH comes from the Semitic root הוה 'howa', to exist, and is connected with something that is self-sustaining or self-existent, is the cause of all existence, and the totality of the phenomenal universe that brings everything into being. Among the 99 names of God in Islam: Al-Wāsi' The Vast, The All-Embracing, The Omnipresent, The Boundless Al-Ḥaqq The Truth, The Real Al-Wāḥid The One, The Unique Al-'Aḥad The Unity, The Indivisible Aṣ-Ṣamad The Eternal, The Absolute, The Self-Sufficient Al-Bāqīy The Immutable, The Infinite, The Everlasting Some of the names of Krishna: Achala - Still Lord Parabrahmana - The Supreme Absolute Truth Sanatana - The Eternal Lord Sarvajana - Omniscient Lord The root Mantra of the Sikh religion begins: there is one creator, whose name is truth... In Buddhism: Samantabhadra Buddha declares of itself: I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am the core because I contain all phenomena. I am the seed because I give birth to everything. I am the cause because all comes from me. I am the trunk because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am the foundation because all abides in me. I am called the root because I am everything. *Quotes:* Geometry existed before the creation, it is co-eternal with the mind of God, Geometry provided god with a model for creation, Geometry is God himself. -- Kepler To all of us who hold the Christian belief that God is truth, anything that is true is a fact about God, and mathematics is a branch of theology. -- Hilda Phoebe Hudson The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. -- Euclid I would say with those who say ‘God is Love’, God is Love. But deep down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is Truth above all. If it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that God is Truth. Two years ago I went a step further and said that Truth is God. You will see the fine distinction between the two statements, ‘God is Truth’ and ‘Truth is God’. I came to that conclusion after a continuous and relentless search after truth which began fifty years ago. I then found that the nearest approach to truth was through love. But I also found that love has many meanings in the English language and that human love in the sense of passion could become a degrading thing. I found too that love in the sense of ahimsa [nonviolence, roughly] had only a limited
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Honestly... I have never read your work... it is over my head and I reject it in principle... because it goes 100% counter to my intuition and good sense (in so far as I understand it from the things you seem to say) Frankly I don't want to know it because from what I hear, it sounds ridiculous! If it didn't sound so outright ridiculous I might go deeper into it. I am sure Copernican's or Darwin's idea sounded ridiculous in their time. It would be a shame to come across this list only to bring a closed mind. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. But would God not know what it is like to be you? To know that would require forgetting, at least temporarily, one is God. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless absurdities it started with a response to this guys ridiculous assertions: The very definition of consciousness: having awareness of ones own thoughts and sensations.. Awareness is defined as having knowledge or information. Therefore consciousness is the possession of information (about ones thoughts or sensations). There are thoughts and sensations, but there is no second entity that is awareness of thoughts and sensations... find it. You define awareness as having knowledge or information, as the possession of information. but here is an age-old Indic question: who is the possessor of the information? It sounds like a silly question... this is not sophisticated stuff... you are 2,500 years behind my friend. You assume and project a supposed x behind and in possession of thoughts and sensations. It cannot be found... just look. Hume knew this, Nietzsche knew this, Buddha knew this. Try to find a self that is the holder of a body and a falsely objectified mind, but is neither of the two. This is an assumption. moving on: We can say that we have information about what we are aware of...but that is not the same as saying that awareness *is* information. Information is a difference that makes a difference. But it has to make a difference *to* someone. Awareness may very well be information, unless you want to make up a piece of information which masquerades as the entity behind information. You say information has to make a difference to someone... very well, but that doesn't get you out of the problem of the enigma-identity of this supposed someone that you think must be at the root of information. Information is observer-relative. Observers aren’t information- relative. Don't you see your observer is information! Moving beyond the notion of a observer... I would even claim that observation isn't occurring, neither as a act or process or object or event there is merely the observed. can someone please explain to this guy the self-superstition he continuously invokes. Representation depends on me. I don’t depend on representation. Wrong. You do depend on representation... but pseudo-representation, you depend on a pseudo-representation or a non-representational invented pseudo-representation. Representation is something you do, not something that you are. Well then what are you! On Jun 5, 9:58 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must exist outside sets of axioms altogether. Then perhaps the correct conclusion to draw is that there is no such thing as mathematical truth? Perhaps there is just human belief. Perhaps so, perhaps there is only Rex's beliefs. Perhaps only rex's beliefs at this exact moment. Not obviously impossible. Thought not obviously necessitated either. Does the possibility that there are only Jason’s beliefs at this exact moment scare you? Would you prefer it to be otherwise? What model for decision making can there be with such a world view? But we don’t need metaphysics for decision making. We must act. And there’s nothing guide those actions except that which can be “distilled” from past experience. But what to make of the distillate? Is it just a compact description of past observations? Or is it a “true” description of reality? Classical mechanics turned out to be a compact description of past observations. No one looks to Newton’s equations for metaphysical guidance, do they? But computationalism is, you think, a true description of reality? But what explanatory power does that offer? It seems plausible to me that physics (or computationalists) may be able to generate a complete, compact framework that describes the world that I observe. And since I observe behavior of the people around me, and the framework is a compact description of my observations, then I should be able to “explain” people’s behavior in terms of the framework. And if I can explain my neighbor’s behavior in terms of the framework, maybe I can explain my own behavior in those terms as well. However... Explanation is something that occurs *within* a descriptive framework. Those explanations don’t reach beyond the framework. Going “metaphysical” (instead of instrumental) with an explanatory framework could only be justified if we had some reason to believe that our observations plus our reason gave us reliable access to what is
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise simultaneously or that perhaps they are all essentially the same perhaps they can't really be differentiated... and perhaps they don't really arise in a linear sequence... matter- mind- math... this is naturalism, and most peoples view... the dominant view of science and what all its work is currently based on. Bruno wants you to think that math- mind- matter is platonism or pythagorean... but it really isn't. it is much much more complicated then that. first of all just because geometrical forms are considered apriori socratically... doesn't mean that they ultimately pre-existed mind... they just mean one had knowledge of them via a past life in the reincarnationist pythagorean-platonic sense. two, in the true platonic sense... mathematics isn't number one there is something higher... and this doesn't mean they generated each other in a hierarchical order of descent... it is just plato's theory of degrees or levels of truth/reality... third. platonism is really much more complex and conflicting then you think, and much more ambiguous then you think... but neo-platonicaly. there are many precursors to mind, and none of them are numers or geometric forms. Bruno is totally misrepresenting and inverting Plato. he is trying to reduce something complex, conflicted, and ambiguous to his strange and odd system. On Jun 5, 9:57 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must exist outside sets of axioms altogether. [SPK] I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only exist in our minds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it be possible that our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplistic to define the kind of set that is necessary? ** 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). Compared to B, A explains the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe (with the Anthropic Principle), and with computationalism explains QM. C has the least explanatory power, and we must wonder why the experience contained within our minds seems to follow a compressible set of physical laws, and why mathematical objects seem to posses objective properties but by definition lack reality. Those who say other universes do not exist are only adding baseless entities to their theory, to define away that which is not observed. It was what led to theories such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulated collapse as a random selection of one possible outcome to be made real and cause the rest to disappear. Similarly, there are string theorists which hope to find some mathematical reason why other possible solutions to string theory are inconsistent, and the one corresponding to the the standard model is the only one that exists. Why? They think this is necessary to make their theory agree with observation, but when the very thing is unobservable according to the theory it is completely unnecessary. The situation is reminiscent of DeWitt and Everett: In his letter, DeWitt had claimed that he could not feel himself split, so, as mathematically attractive as Everett's theory was, he said, it could not be true. Everett replied in his letter to DeWitt that, hundreds of years ago, after Copernicus had made his radical assertion that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the reverse, his critics had complained that they could not feel the Earth move, so how could it be true? Recalling Everett's response to him decades later, in which he pointed out how
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
you also forgot Natural Math - matter - mind - artificial math (work out any sequence) you forgot many other sequences and many things we could add to this... you also assume we understand or know any of these so called entities. you presuppose to much. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.comwrote: 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise simultaneously or that perhaps they are all essentially the same perhaps they can't really be differentiated... and perhaps they don't really arise in a linear sequence... matter- mind- math... this is naturalism, and most peoples view... the dominant view of science and what all its work is currently based on. Bruno wants you to think that math- mind- matter is platonism or pythagorean... but it really isn't. it is much much more complicated then that. first of all just because geometrical forms are considered apriori socratically... doesn't mean that they ultimately pre-existed mind... they just mean one had knowledge of them via a past life in the reincarnationist pythagorean-platonic sense. two, in the true platonic sense... mathematics isn't number one there is something higher... and this doesn't mean they generated each other in a hierarchical order of descent... it is just plato's theory of degrees or levels of truth/reality... third. platonism is really much more complex and conflicting then you think, and much more ambiguous then you think... but neo-platonicaly. there are many precursors to mind, and none of them are numers or geometric forms. Bruno is totally misrepresenting and inverting Plato. he is trying to reduce something complex, conflicted, and ambiguous to his strange and odd system. On Jun 5, 9:57 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must exist outside sets of axioms altogether. [SPK] I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only exist in our minds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it be possible that our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplistic to define the kind of set that is necessary? ** 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). Compared to B, A explains the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe (with the Anthropic Principle), and with computationalism explains QM. C has the least explanatory power, and we must wonder why the experience contained within our minds seems to follow a compressible set of physical laws, and why mathematical objects seem to posses objective properties but by definition lack reality. Those who say other universes do not exist are only adding baseless entities to their theory, to define away that which is not observed. It was what led to theories such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulated collapse as a random selection of one possible outcome to be made real and cause the rest to disappear. Similarly, there are string theorists which hope to find some mathematical reason why other possible solutions to string theory are inconsistent, and the one corresponding to the the standard model is the only one that exists. Why? They think this is necessary to make their theory agree with observation, but when the very thing is unobservable according to the theory it is completely unnecessary. The situation is reminiscent of DeWitt and Everett: In his letter, DeWitt had claimed that he could not feel
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Don't let Bruno misrepresent Plato as a fanciful sounding idiot plato was smart, real smart that is why he never had a stable or definitive theory of forms it was just something he was developing and playing with in so far as we know and he was the harshest critic of it. and if you read his seventh letter... you see he believes we invent math and you see he was Wittgensteinian before Wittgenstein. No one knows Platos true doctrine... he said that himself... read his seventh letter. On Jun 5, 9:57 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must exist outside sets of axioms altogether. [SPK] I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only exist in our minds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it be possible that our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplistic to define the kind of set that is necessary? ** 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). Compared to B, A explains the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe (with the Anthropic Principle), and with computationalism explains QM. C has the least explanatory power, and we must wonder why the experience contained within our minds seems to follow a compressible set of physical laws, and why mathematical objects seem to posses objective properties but by definition lack reality. Those who say other universes do not exist are only adding baseless entities to their theory, to define away that which is not observed. It was what led to theories such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulated collapse as a random selection of one possible outcome to be made real and cause the rest to disappear. Similarly, there are string theorists which hope to find some mathematical reason why other possible solutions to string theory are inconsistent, and the one corresponding to the the standard model is the only one that exists. Why? They think this is necessary to make their theory agree with observation, but when the very thing is unobservable according to the theory it is completely unnecessary. The situation is reminiscent of DeWitt and Everett: In his letter, DeWitt had claimed that he could not feel himself split, so, as mathematically attractive as Everett's theory was, he said, it could not be true. Everett replied in his letter to DeWitt that, hundreds of years ago, after Copernicus had made his radical assertion that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the reverse, his critics had complained that they could not feel the Earth move, so how could it be true? Recalling Everett's response to him decades later, in which he pointed out how Newtonian physics revealed why we don't feel the Earth move, DeWitt wrote, All I could say was touché! 2) I don't know. Godel proved that any sufficiently complex axiomatic system can prove that there are things that are true which it cannot prove. Only more powerful systems can prove the things which are not provable in those other axiomatic systems, but this creates an infinite hierarchy. Whether or not there is some ultimate top to it I don't know. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here Bruno is too, nevertheless he gives me a headache. even if he was right, I hope hes wrong. On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone watched the movie Contact, in which the structure of the universe was encoded in the transcendental number Pi? What if something like that is what is going on, and that's the answer to all paradoxes? So the physical universe beings with Pi encoded in the Big Bang, chaotically inflates, and eventually cools and contracts back to itself until it is again, exactly the mathematical description of Pi. All consciousness is thus contain with Pi. But then, Pi is just like any other transcendental number! So all transcendental numbers contain all existence F.H. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. From: Jason Resch Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must exist outside sets of axioms altogether. [SPK] I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only exist in our minds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it be possible that our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplistic to define the kind of set that is necessary? ** 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). Compared to B, A explains the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe (with the Anthropic Principle), and with computationalism explains QM. C has the least explanatory power, and we must wonder why the experience contained within our minds seems to follow a compressible set of physical laws, and why mathematical objects seem to posses objective properties but by definition lack reality. Those who say other universes do not exist are only adding baseless entities to their theory, to define away that which is not observed. It was what led to theories such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulated collapse as a random selection of one possible outcome to be made real and cause the rest to disappear. Similarly, there are string theorists which hope to find some mathematical reason why other possible solutions to string theory are inconsistent, and the one corresponding to the the standard model is the only one that exists. Why? They think this is necessary to make their theory agree with observation, but when the very thing is unobservable according to the theory it is completely unnecessary. The situation is reminiscent of DeWitt and Everett: In his letter, DeWitt had claimed that he could not feel himself split, so, as mathematically attractive as Everett's theory was, he said, it could not be true. Everett replied in his letter to DeWitt that, hundreds of years ago, after Copernicus had made his radical assertion that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the reverse, his critics had complained that they could not feel the Earth move, so how could it be true? Recalling Everett's response to him decades later, in which he pointed out how Newtonian physics revealed why we don't feel the Earth move, DeWitt wrote, All I could say was touché! 2) I don't know. Godel proved that any sufficiently complex axiomatic system can prove that there are things that are true which it cannot prove. Only more powerful systems can prove the things which are not provable in those other axiomatic systems, but this creates an infinite hierarchy. Whether or not there is some ultimate top to it I don't know. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
I'm inclined to agree, although I would not necessarily say that numbers are self aware so much as they are patterns through which we articulate our own awareness (which may or may not correspond to elemental awareness). Think of them as sensorimotive prisms and lenses which have been purified to the point of qualitative transparency so that our own awareness can be reflected in the quantified 0ther. All pattern has a kind of self-identifying content which I would say arises subtractively rather than through accumulation. Numbers aren't objects which communicate with each other, they are subjects which work more like scratches in an opaque layer of wax that reveals glimmers of the underlying sense which connects everything. If they are self-aware, I would suspect that our experience of them is not at all what their awareness is like - just as our own imagination could never give us a picture of our own face had we never seen a mirror or photo of ourselves. Numericity in general may be more of a universal entity which functions on the electromagnetic level. On Jun 4, 5:09 am, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry again, but I want to add one thing: The broadest mathematical closure of the existence of computation, the observation of consciousness anywhere suggests the following, in my mind: all possible numbers (including transfinite-ones) are, in fact, self aware substructures in the mathematical universe, recursively communicating to each other by exchanging bits in an attempt to develop the algorithm which compresses themselves to a single state, which represents the number one, after which it promptly forgets and starts all over again, everywhere, and all at once. -- Forwarded message -- From: Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM Subject: The final TOE? To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Hi all, Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically the exact same theory, modulo the additional bit of information that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every respect, as it necessarily must be since it follows exactly from the asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional structure of any form (i.e. including string theory). Since no true gravitational singularities exist, then every point in space is an apparent black hole because no point in space is an apparent black hole. Thus, at every point in space, a bit of information (or a photon) can escape from the observable universe on our scale, go into the past, and come out in the future in a symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through locally closed loops can look like point particles with some net entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way, and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the divergence and appearance of other fundamental forces early in the inflating universe. It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the contemplation of the singularity, and that our inability to discover the true laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and the black hole. It follows that this fact was exactly true all along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless consequences of our local geometry of space, and our civilization has, in fact, rather than been trying to discover the next laws of physics, has in fact been struggling to unlearn the concept of Indeterminacy and quantum mechanics, since QM follows from GR, the postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully completed the fully deterministic general laws of physics. Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested: the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each observer point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely deterministic, and you for any defined you is getting non-random information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be added to you by the rest of the universe in some systematic fashion, down to the tiniest quantum of universe. This implies that there is actually, some quanta of the universe, a photon, and each photon is having information added to it from the rest of the universe, in a systematic
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 7/4/2011 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise simultaneously or that perhaps they are all essentially the same perhaps they can't really be differentiated... and perhaps they don't really arise in a linear sequence... matter- mind- math... this is naturalism, and most peoples view... the dominant view of science and what all its work is currently based on. Bruno wants you to think that math- mind- matter is platonism or pythagorean... but it really isn't. it is much much more complicated then that. I like Matter-Minds-Math ^ | |_ | 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little critique: 1. Explanation is subordinate to description. 2. Description is subordinate to observation. 3. Observation is subordinate to experience. 4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience. you distinguish between observation and experience? nonsense. However, our explanation of experience can only be justified by appeal to experience - plus reason. Before jumping to explanation of experience you might want to hang out at the problem of description of experience which is an element of experience itself, or in so far as it is possible, a tautology. Does any such description of experience exist? FURTHERMORE you assume there is in existence any such explanation of experience or existence. show me one explanation of experience. even if it existed it would be a mere feature of experience. But what is reason? Where does it come from? What explains it? What do experience and reason have to say about reason? Another circle I like this. It reminds me of a prediction a friend made... he says those on the cutting edge of the modern mind are starting to experience the break down or dysfunction and limits of the analytical or rational mind a kind of crisis of rationalism which will produce profound effects, especially once we get past the faith of scientific optimism if our experiences correspond to something external to themselves I don't see why you distinguish between the world and our observations I could see how you could distinguish between our subjective configurations of observing instruments and the non- objective relativities of corresponding appearances upon whatever level of abstraction or non-objectivity. Do you believe in a objective world or totality? Do you believe in an objective experience of experience-description? Do you believe in a objective reality, universal and totalizing, that can represent itself as such? I don't. I think objectivity is an illusion. In so far as it is possible it only accounts for one limited configuration or set. the objective depends on the condition or configuration/status of the indeterminate subject which is apart of and productive of the framework of appearances/observation yet aloof from it. But what reason do we have to believe that our experiences do so correspond to an external world I firmly believe that the conventional notion of the process through which vision comes to be is erroneous and absurd and self- contradictory. Our experience of dreams and hallucinations and delusions are enough to plant the seeds of doubt about the reliability of both experience and reason. in other words, unless you assert and delineate a reductionist/ physicalist ground with all its variables and necessary structures for experiences... in a kind of matrix way. then the notion of objective existence or objective reality underlying the varieties of experience the notion of the one, of the absolute objective operation unifying and underlying all multiplicity and subjectivity is untenable. And there’s just the general question of what “reason” means in a deterministic world, or a probabilistic world, or a purely contingent world. Or how about a world which is a vague approximation of all three and more. What is determined reason, rational, reasonable, probable, possible etc. this is all a relativistic determination. Furthermore in your supposed metaphysical leap of faith that of course would also be a feature of experience and not a reflection of the supposed transcendent grounds of experience.. there can be no metaphysical transcendent grounds of experience... the very notion is simply a feature of experience and even if it was true it would be absolutely unexperiencable and unknowable and therefore practically non-existent with no identity. There is no non-ideational metaphysics outside of experience... duh. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Rex: Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad. is not our life essentially on rails i think we should utterly abolish the notion of any teleology, destination, or end. there is no end abolish the notion of end in endlessness or in annihilation, rather then in something positive, fixed and transcendent... and there you have it. there is no adequate reason to suppose there is some end as Nietzsche said, if there was we would have been their already. These are absurd notions people come up with to escape the metaphysical facticity of nihilism or nihil-ation. these people are idolaters. On Jun 6, 1:42 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps so, perhaps there is only Rex's beliefs. Perhaps only rex's beliefs at this exact moment. Not obviously impossible. Thought not obviously necessitated either. Does the possibility that there are only Jason’s beliefs at this exact moment scare you? Would you prefer it to be otherwise? It makes the universe much smaller, less varied, less fascinating, etc. to believe my current thought is all there is. It also makes answering any questions futile (why does this thought exist?, can I change it? Am I a static thought or an evolving thought? What determines or controls the content of this thought?) How can any of those questions be approached if only thought exists? How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in a deterministic computational framework? Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and fixed in Platonia. Further, nothing about computationalism promises truth or anything else desirable...or even makes them likely. In fact, surely lies are far more common than truths in Platonia. There are few ways to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. If you think you exist in Platonia, then surely you also have to conclude that nearly everything else you believe is a lie. *** Computationalism’s answers to the questions you pose are: Why does this thought exist? There is no reason except that computation exists. Big whoop. Can I change it? No. Am I a static or evolving thought? Neither. Your are computation. What determines or controls the content of this thought? The brute fact of computational structure. *** Why did your momma love you? It was computationally entailed. Why did Jeffry Dahlmer kill those people? It was computationally entailed. Why 9/11, Auschwitz, AIDS, famine, bigotry, hate, suffering? They are computationally entailed. Platonia actually sounds like more hell than heaven. SO...what is it that computationalism gives you over solipsism, exactly? What makes this picture more varied, more fascinating, less futile? I’m not saying you’re position is worse than mine, but surely it’s no better. What is the engine providing the computations which drive the universe? That assumes that computations do drive the universe. Which is the assumption that I’m questioning. The physical universe may be computational or it may be a mathematical structure, but what enforces its consistency and constancy of its laws? If it were a mathematical structure, or a computation then the consistency comes for free. But doesn’t computationalism predict that their should be conscious entities whose experience is of inconsistent, contradictory, shifting laws? In fact, this sounds like the experiences described by schizophrenics, or people on drugs. In fact, I would think that Platonia should contain far more chaotic experiences than not. So this virtue that you highlight isn’t a virtue at all. The idea that “oh, those all cancel out when we average across all computations” or something is pretty ad hoc sounding. You’ve lost whatever intuitive appeal that computationalism had in fell swoop. We’re back to, “why would that result in conscious experience if non-averaged computation didn’t???” It just does? Pah. Do you think pi has an objective (not human invented or approximated) value, whether or not any person computed it? I think that everyone who starts from the same assumptions and makes the same inferences will always reach the same conclusions regarding the value of pi. So that would make pi an objectively studiable object, would it not? Everyone who starts with the same assumptions about the Incredible Hulk and Spiderman, and makes the same inferences from those assumptions, will reach the same conclusions
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jul 2011, at 20:09, meekerdb wrote: On 7/4/2011 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise simultaneously or that perhaps they are all essentially the same perhaps they can't really be differentiated... and perhaps they don't really arise in a linear sequence... matter- mind- math... this is naturalism, and most peoples view... the dominant view of science and what all its work is currently based on. Bruno wants you to think that math- mind- matter is platonism or pythagorean... but it really isn't. it is much much more complicated then that. I like Matter-Minds-Math ^ | |_ | It might be that the prime numbers are so perverse that their distribution already emulate a quantum universal dovetailer, although they seem today more emulate quantum chaos or heavy nuclei ... But comp does not give much choice and literally forces [ number - mind - matter] being more correct, and then, it is also the only way to get the quanta and the qualia, the provable and the 'truth' which extends it. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Jason: I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here. I thought we did away with these classical metaphysical speculations. Did you not read Kant? You may be able to prove it but you will never be able to demonstrate or know the identity of it. So you bs. On Jun 6, 7:00 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps so, perhaps there is only Rex's beliefs. Perhaps only rex's beliefs at this exact moment. Not obviously impossible. Thought not obviously necessitated either. Does the possibility that there are only Jason’s beliefs at this exact moment scare you? Would you prefer it to be otherwise? It makes the universe much smaller, less varied, less fascinating, etc. to believe my current thought is all there is. It also makes answering any questions futile (why does this thought exist?, can I change it? Am I a static thought or an evolving thought? What determines or controls the content of this thought?) How can any of those questions be approached if only thought exists? How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in a deterministic computational framework? Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. This is fatalism. By AR+Comp you will experience all possible experiences, perhaps an infinite number of times (recurring endlessly?). But this does not mean we are powerless to affect the measure of those experiences. A simple example: Some think that QM implies that in half the universes they put on the seatbelt and in half the others they don't. This is not true, if the person is conscientious enough they probably put on the seat belt in99% of the universes. That depends entirely on them. A less safety-concerned individual may have the opposite probabilities. Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and fixed in Platonia. Further, nothing about computationalism promises truth or anything else desirable...or even makes them likely. In fact, surely lies are far more common than truths in Platonia. There are few ways to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. If you think you exist in Platonia, then surely you also have to conclude that nearly everything else you believe is a lie. What is true in this universe may be false or meaningless in most of the universes, but there might be some things which are true in every universe (such as 2+2 = 4). If it is true in every universe, even in those having fewer than 4 things to count then by extension they are true even in universes with nothing to count, and correspondingly, would be true even if there was nothing anywhere. Math is self-existent (I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all) and it is much easier to see how math can be self-existent compared to observable physical universe. *** Computationalism’s answers to the questions you pose are: Why does this thought exist? There is no reason except that computation exists. Big whoop. Computationalism (mechanism, functionalism) is a theory of mind, which I believe is superior to its contenders (immaterialism, interactionalist dualism, epiphenominalism, biological naturalism, mind-brain identity theory, etc.) which all have big flaws. While immaterialism cannot be disproved, it explains nothing and therefore fails as an explanatory or scientific theory. It Can I change it? No. Then why bother to get food when you are hungry? Am I a static or evolving thought? Neither. Your are computation. What determines or controls the content of this thought? The brute fact of computational structure. *** Why did your momma love you? It was computationally entailed. Why did Jeffry Dahlmer kill those people? It was computationally entailed. Why 9/11, Auschwitz, AIDS, famine, bigotry, hate, suffering? They are computationally entailed. This is just reductionism taken beyond the level where it should be taken. You might as well answer: It is physically entailed, chemically entailed, biologically entailed, etc. I don't see the point of the argument. Platonia actually sounds like more hell than heaven. You base that on the small part of Platonia you have seen in your decades as a human on this remote planet floating through an infinitesimal part of the
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group... On Jun 6, 10:16 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in a deterministic computational framework? Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. This is fatalism. By AR+Comp you will experience all possible experiences, perhaps an infinite number of times (recurring endlessly?). But this does not mean we are powerless to affect the measure of those experiences. A simple example: Some think that QM implies that in half the universes they put on the seatbelt and in half the others they don't. This is not true, if the person is conscientious enough they probably put on the seat belt in 99% of the universes. That depends entirely on them. A less safety-concerned individual may have the opposite probabilities. If the evolution of the universal wavefunction is deterministic, then it doesn't depend entirely on them...it depends entirely on the universal wavefunction. How could it depend entirely on them - using depend and them in the usual senses of the words? You're not surreptitiousness using non-standard definitions of words without making that explicit, are you? Once the initial state of the wavefunction are fixed and the rules that determine its evolution are fixed - then everything else, including seatbelt usage, is also fixed. If anything depends on anything, *everything* depends on the initial state and the rules that govern (describe?) how the state changes. In your example, they don't put on their seatbelt 99% of the time *because* they are conscientious - rather, they are labeled conscientious because they put on their seatbelt 99% of the time. See how the arrow is reversed there? Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and fixed in Platonia. Further, nothing about computationalism promises truth or anything else desirable...or even makes them likely. In fact, surely lies are far more common than truths in Platonia. There are few ways to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. If you think you exist in Platonia, then surely you also have to conclude that nearly everything else you believe is a lie. What is true in this universe may be false or meaningless in most of the universes, but there might be some things which are true in every universe (such as 2+2 = 4). It seems conceivable to me that you might have trouble convincing the inhabitants of every (or even most) universes of that, even by appeal to experience. Just set up the initial conditions correctly, and the state changes correctly, and viola! A whole universe of people who have funky beliefs that are reinforced by experience at every check. Or are contradicted, but the contradictions as misinterpreted as confirmations. Maybe that's us... Maybe my imagination is more vivid, or my checks on it less stringent. Have you tried imagining such a thing? Living in such a universe? As a spur to imagination: Have you read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell? The role of madness? The gentleman with thistle-down hair? (I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all) Conscious experience. Can I change it? No. Then why bother to get food when you are hungry? It's entailed by the brute computational structure of Platonia, I assume. Why 9/11, Auschwitz, AIDS, famine, bigotry, hate, suffering? They are computationally entailed. This is just reductionism taken beyond the level where it should be taken. You might as well answer: It is physically entailed, chemically entailed, biologically entailed, etc. I don't see the point of the argument. H...I don't see how you could miss the point of the argument...? See above on seat-belts. Platonia actually sounds like more hell than heaven. You base that on the small part of Platonia you have seen in your decades as a human on this remote planet floating through an infinitesimal part of the universe. Perhaps life in other alien civilizations is comparatively a heaven. Actually I would tend to think that the number of hedonists and masochists in Platonia would balance each other. For every entity that loves pleasure, there's another who loves pain. Just flip a few bits, and there you have it - heaven transformed into hell, or vice versa. Oh wait...maybe I can’t invent such a book, because I’m not a very good writer, and people don’t find the structure of my fantasies compelling or believable or interesting or useful. Rats. My point was that
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Your brain contains information received by the senses, it is a system which can enter many different states based on that information It is so amazing to me how blind people are who actually believe this clearly ridiculous notion. information as used by geneticists and brain-scientists is a metaphor of a metaphor. First. There is information in the sense of words and ideas, in the sense of reading or hearing and learning something. Second. We take that and make a metaphor of it, and apply it to machines or computers, and also to dna and the brain... the metaphor information which sometimes is used in a double metaphor sense is used to mask the fact that we really don't know what is going on but we are using our convenient notion and understanding of information to apply it to the case. On Jun 7, 3:53 am, Pete Hughes pet...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, I found this compelling, are you saying that the difficulty of explaining qualia is due to the language centre of the brain being able to access only an abstract 'interface' (I'm a object oriented thinker) of the sensors? then what about emotions? I'm trying to pre-empt your response to 'why don't you put your hand in the fire and enjoy the information' and I just can't, I like the way you talk so I will pester you with the question. Your brain contains information received by the senses, it is a system which can enter many different states based on that information (it interprets it). One of those states is your brain thinking about the fact that it knows it is touching the back of your hand with one of your fingers (that may represent only a few bits of information), now consider that your brain has 100,000,000,000 neurons and you can begin to see that more complex qualia such as vision involve vastly greater amounts of information (some 30% of your cortex is devoted to processing visual information). Together with the modularity of mind (different sections are specialized and compute different things, and share the results with other brain regions), you can begin to see why qualia such as Red or Green are so hard to explain. Consider Google's self-driving cars. They need to determine whether the stop light is Yellow, Red or Green. The cameras collect many MB worth of raw R,G,B data per second which is processed by a specialized function which determines the state of the stop light. The result Red, Green, or Yellow is transmitted to other parts of the driving software, for example the parts which control acceleration. This part of the software knows there is a difference between Light is Red vs. Light is Green, but it cannot say how they are different or why it knows they are different (this was decided elsewhere). It is much like the verbal section of your brain trying to articulate the difference between red and green, it knows they are different but cannot say how. It does now have access to the raw data received from the millions of cones in your retina. On 7 June 2011 03:00, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps so, perhaps there is only Rex's beliefs. Perhaps only rex's beliefs at this exact moment. Not obviously impossible. Thought not obviously necessitated either. Does the possibility that there are only Jason’s beliefs at this exact moment scare you? Would you prefer it to be otherwise? It makes the universe much smaller, less varied, less fascinating, etc. to believe my current thought is all there is. It also makes answering any questions futile (why does this thought exist?, can I change it? Am I a static thought or an evolving thought? What determines or controls the content of this thought?) How can any of those questions be approached if only thought exists? How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in a deterministic computational framework? Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. This is fatalism. By AR+Comp you will experience all possible experiences, perhaps an infinite number of times (recurring endlessly?). But this does not mean we are powerless to affect the measure of those experiences. A simple example: Some think that QM implies that in half the universes they put on the seatbelt and in half the others they don't. This is not true, if the person is conscientious enough they probably put on the seat belt in 99% of the universes. That depends entirely on them. A less safety-concerned individual may have the opposite probabilities. Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
comp immaterialism: I am dreaming that all numbers are dreaming and I don't know it. On Jun 7, 7:32 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkely. If by representation you mean the representation of consciousness, then this is the functionalist/computationalist philosophy in a nutshell. Computationalism says that representation *is* something you are. I say the opposite. Representation is something you do, which is so natural to you and so useful to you that you’ve mistaken it as the explanation for everything. You should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind) Functionalism is the idea that it is what the parts do, not what they are that is important in a mind. Computatalism is a more specific form of functionalism (it assumes the functions are Turing emulable) I disagree with this. Putnam' functionalism is at the start a fuzzy form of computationalism (the wiki is rather bad on those subjects). It is fuzzy because it is not aware that IF we are machine, then we cannot know which machine we are. That is why it is a theology, you need an act of faith beyond just trusting the 'doctor'. In a sense functionalism is a specific form of computationalism because functionalist assumes by default some high level of comp. They are just fuzzy on the term function, and seems unaware of the tremendous progress made on this by logicians and theoretical computer scientists. Note also that comp makes *1-you* different from any representation, from you first person perspective. So, the owner of the soul is the (immaterial) person, not the body. A body is already a representation of you, relatively to some universal numbers. In a sense we can sum up comp's consequence by: If 3-I is a machine, then 1-I is not. The soul is not a machine *from its point of view. He has to bet on its own G* to say 'yes' to the doctor. Of course, once we accept comp, we can retrospectively imagine that nature has already bet on it, given that the genome is digital relatively to chemistry, and given the evidences for evolution, and our very deep history. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
if reality was known, it wouldn't have to be stated... unless there was a mis-perception that needed to be corrected hence our theorem tautologies are evidence that reality is not known otherwise it would not need to be doubly and secondly stated for assurance and clarification that is a cover, we convice ourselves that our tautologies are true, but the only reason they are called for is because things are obviously unknown. We accept the real so readily only because we sense that reality does not exist Jorge Luis Borges Last night I had a dream about reality. It was such a relief to wake up. Stanislaw J. Lec On Jun 7, 8:01 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Dear Bruno, From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation Hi Stephen, On 06 Jun 2011, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Rex and Friends, My .002$... [BM] No theories nor machine can reach all arithmetical truth, but few people doubt that closed arithmetical propositions are either true or false. We do share a common intuition on the nature of arithmetical truth. I have doubt on any notion of global mathematical truth. Sets, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. are simplifications of the natural numbers. They are convenient fictions, I think. If we are machine, it is undecidable if ontology is more than N. [SPK] I think that there is some differences in opinion about this but it seems to me that we need to look at some details. For example, there should exist a theory that could reach all arithmetic truth given an eternity of time or an unnamable number of recursions or steps. [BM] ? No this cannot exist. It is precluded by the incompleteness theorem. Eternity can't help. Unless you take a non axiomatisable theory, or some God-like entities. [SPK] Yes, you are correct. I miswrote. I had even developed an informal proof of this in my critique of Leibniz’ Monadology. But this still presents a challenge.. Umm, maybe this is where Cantor et al considered this idea in terms of unnamable cardinals... ** This by definition would put them forever beyond human (finite entity) comprehension. Whether or not there is closure or a closed form of some theory does not make it realistic or not. AFAIK, closed arithmetic propositions are tautologies, no? [BM] They are not tautologies, unless you mean by this propositions true in *all* models of Peano Arithmetic. But then tautology means theorem, and that would be an awkward terminology. Ax(0 ≠ s(x)) is not a tautology (it is already false in (Z,+), nor is Fermat last theorem. [SPK] Yes, I did mean it that way, as in “propositions that are true in *all* models” but not just of Peano Arithmetic. I was considering all Arithmetics, especially Robinson’s. Usually one thinks of tautologies as A = A. What I am trying to weaken is the way that the so called law of identity is usually defined. I am working toward a notion of equivalence that allows for not just strict equality but a more general notion of “bisimilarity”. In this way theorems would be tautologies in this weaker form of Identity. ** That we share a common intuition of truth may follow from a common local measure of truth within each of us. (Here the inside implied by the word within is the logical/Arithmetic/abstract aspect of the duality that I propose.) Additionally, we should be careful not to conflate a plurality of fungible individuals with a multiplicity of non-fungible entities. We can set up a mental hall of mirrors and generate an infinite number of self-images in it, but this cannot *exactly* map to all of the selves that could exist without additional methods to break the symmetries. I have been waiting a long time for you to state this belief of yours, Bruno! That Sets, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. are simplifications of (mappings on/in?) the Natural Numbers. This seems to be the Pythagorean doctrine that I suspected that you believed. [BM] Would you take the time to study the papers, you would have understood that this is a result of comp. Comp transforms the very banal arithmetical realism in an authentic Pythagorean neoplatonist theology, i.e. with some use of OCCAM razor. [SPK] I am studying the papers, but I need to clarify some ideas by asking questions to the Professor. ;-) I do not think the way you do and must translate your mental language into my own to understand them. ** It has a long history and a lot of apostles that have quite spectacular histories. I think that there is a deep truth in this belief, but I think that it needs to be more closely examined. [BM] It can be derived from Church thesis and the assumption that we are Turing emulable. [SPK] OK, but would
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
indeed. there are a) misperceptions b) perceptions c) lack of perceptions d) impossibility of perception e) pseudo-perceptions. It is interesting to check out what Penrose is talking about when he talks about Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in theoretical physics. Fashion: String Theory Faith: Quantum Mechanics at all levels Fantasy: Inflationary Cosmology and other wild cosmological schemes On Jun 7, 8:01 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Dear Bruno, From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation Hi Stephen, On 06 Jun 2011, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Rex and Friends, My .002$... [BM] No theories nor machine can reach all arithmetical truth, but few people doubt that closed arithmetical propositions are either true or false. We do share a common intuition on the nature of arithmetical truth. I have doubt on any notion of global mathematical truth. Sets, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. are simplifications of the natural numbers. They are convenient fictions, I think. If we are machine, it is undecidable if ontology is more than N. [SPK] I think that there is some differences in opinion about this but it seems to me that we need to look at some details. For example, there should exist a theory that could reach all arithmetic truth given an eternity of time or an unnamable number of recursions or steps. [BM] ? No this cannot exist. It is precluded by the incompleteness theorem. Eternity can't help. Unless you take a non axiomatisable theory, or some God-like entities. [SPK] Yes, you are correct. I miswrote. I had even developed an informal proof of this in my critique of Leibniz’ Monadology. But this still presents a challenge.. Umm, maybe this is where Cantor et al considered this idea in terms of unnamable cardinals... ** This by definition would put them forever beyond human (finite entity) comprehension. Whether or not there is closure or a closed form of some theory does not make it realistic or not. AFAIK, closed arithmetic propositions are tautologies, no? [BM] They are not tautologies, unless you mean by this propositions true in *all* models of Peano Arithmetic. But then tautology means theorem, and that would be an awkward terminology. Ax(0 ≠ s(x)) is not a tautology (it is already false in (Z,+), nor is Fermat last theorem. [SPK] Yes, I did mean it that way, as in “propositions that are true in *all* models” but not just of Peano Arithmetic. I was considering all Arithmetics, especially Robinson’s. Usually one thinks of tautologies as A = A. What I am trying to weaken is the way that the so called law of identity is usually defined. I am working toward a notion of equivalence that allows for not just strict equality but a more general notion of “bisimilarity”. In this way theorems would be tautologies in this weaker form of Identity. ** That we share a common intuition of truth may follow from a common local measure of truth within each of us. (Here the inside implied by the word within is the logical/Arithmetic/abstract aspect of the duality that I propose.) Additionally, we should be careful not to conflate a plurality of fungible individuals with a multiplicity of non-fungible entities. We can set up a mental hall of mirrors and generate an infinite number of self-images in it, but this cannot *exactly* map to all of the selves that could exist without additional methods to break the symmetries. I have been waiting a long time for you to state this belief of yours, Bruno! That Sets, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. are simplifications of (mappings on/in?) the Natural Numbers. This seems to be the Pythagorean doctrine that I suspected that you believed. [BM] Would you take the time to study the papers, you would have understood that this is a result of comp. Comp transforms the very banal arithmetical realism in an authentic Pythagorean neoplatonist theology, i.e. with some use of OCCAM razor. [SPK] I am studying the papers, but I need to clarify some ideas by asking questions to the Professor. ;-) I do not think the way you do and must translate your mental language into my own to understand them. ** It has a long history and a lot of apostles that have quite spectacular histories. I think that there is a deep truth in this belief, but I think that it needs to be more closely examined. [BM] It can be derived from Church thesis and the assumption that we are Turing emulable. [SPK] OK, but would you allow me to say that it seems that you are considering a form of Turing emulation that is vastly more sophisticated and subtle than the purely mechanical one that Turing, for example, considered with his A machines? The fact
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable. 1) God is dead 2) God is reborn - as theoretical physics Brunoism: old wine in new bottles. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Jason, you say there is still a great deal of activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished. when you say consciousness is abolished... we know what you mean, yet we do not really know what is meant by consciousness is abolished meaning, we don't know what underlies that statement what has actually happened that you put into words as consciousness is abolished? On Jun 7, 8:05 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes pet...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, I found this compelling, are you saying that the difficulty of explaining qualia is due to the language centre of the brain being able to access only an abstract 'interface' (I'm a object oriented thinker) of the sensors? then what about emotions? I'm trying to pre-empt your response to 'why don't you put your hand in the fire and enjoy the information' and I just can't, I like the way you talk so I will pester you with the question. Peter, Thanks, I am happy to attempt an answer. The below is a conclusion from taking seriouslyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mindwhich is supported by several pieces of evidence: 1. Anesthesia The naive view is that anesthetics work by turning off the brain or causing activity in it to cease. This is incorrect, there is still a great deal of activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished. The person is unable to move, remember, sense pain, etc. Yet other brain functions, such as regulating blood pressure or heart rate continue. The leading theory for why this is, is called cognitive unbinding. Anesthetics operate by confusing or dampening communication between neurons. Cognitive unbinding proposes that this causes disparate brain regions to become cut off from each other as neural signals can only travel so far given the interference of the chemicals. The result is different brain regions are cut off from each other, the pain processing part of the brain doesn't receive information from the touch processing part of the brain, the hippocampus doesn't receive information to encode as memories, the muscles don't receive signals to move which are under conscious control, yet independent brain functions (which don't require interaction with other brain regions) such as those that control breathing or heart rate continue to function. It is not the sheer will to survive which keeps the lungs breathing or heart pumping, as animals which are conscious breathers (such as the dolhpins and whales) will suffocate under anesthesia. This also forbids them from sleeping, they rest only one hemisphere of their brain at a time. 2. Different forms of brain damage Visual information is a cast collection of processed information. Before the image reaches your conscious awareness your brain has applied edge detection, depth and color perception, object recognition, motion sensing, and blind spot extrapolation, among other things. Each of these functions independently and can be impaired or lost without affecting other parts of the brain. There are cases where brain damage to the V5 section of the brain causes motion blindness (sufferers see the world as a collection of static frames, devoid of any concept of motion), likewise people can lose the ability to recognize faces, or recognize objects (these functions occur in different parts of the brain, so while someone might lose the ability to recognize objects they can still recognize faces and vice versa), finally there are people who have lost the ability to process colors. Not only can they no longer see colors, but they lose the ability to recall colors altogether. Since the processing is done in specific areas of the brain, these modules share only the high-level results of their processing with other brain regions. (This is the limited-access part of modularity). It is not possible for all areas of the brain to do everything independently of course, so if they interact with other brain regions, they must receive high level results, not the raw input that a particular module processed. 3. Pain perception This is getting close to your question on emotions and why people don't stick their hand in the fire. It's been found that the perception of pain is handlered in one part of the brain, but what makes pain painful (unpleasent) is handled by an entirely different part of the brain: the anterior cingulate cortex. Damage to this part of the brain (or severing nerves connected to it in an operation called a cingulatomy) brings about the curious phenomenon of pain dissociation. Someone with pain dissociation can provide specific information about the location and intensity of the pain, but it no longer bothers them or causes any distress. An example: Paul Brand, a surgeon and author on the subject of pain recounted the case of a woman who had suffered with a severe and chronic pain for more than
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
language is the most bewitching and misleading devil in existence... it produces the illusion of knowledge. there is a distinction between understanding and knowledge. On Jun 7, 8:05 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes pet...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, I found this compelling, are you saying that the difficulty of explaining qualia is due to the language centre of the brain being able to access only an abstract 'interface' (I'm a object oriented thinker) of the sensors? then what about emotions? I'm trying to pre-empt your response to 'why don't you put your hand in the fire and enjoy the information' and I just can't, I like the way you talk so I will pester you with the question. Peter, Thanks, I am happy to attempt an answer. The below is a conclusion from taking seriouslyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mindwhich is supported by several pieces of evidence: 1. Anesthesia The naive view is that anesthetics work by turning off the brain or causing activity in it to cease. This is incorrect, there is still a great deal of activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished. The person is unable to move, remember, sense pain, etc. Yet other brain functions, such as regulating blood pressure or heart rate continue. The leading theory for why this is, is called cognitive unbinding. Anesthetics operate by confusing or dampening communication between neurons. Cognitive unbinding proposes that this causes disparate brain regions to become cut off from each other as neural signals can only travel so far given the interference of the chemicals. The result is different brain regions are cut off from each other, the pain processing part of the brain doesn't receive information from the touch processing part of the brain, the hippocampus doesn't receive information to encode as memories, the muscles don't receive signals to move which are under conscious control, yet independent brain functions (which don't require interaction with other brain regions) such as those that control breathing or heart rate continue to function. It is not the sheer will to survive which keeps the lungs breathing or heart pumping, as animals which are conscious breathers (such as the dolhpins and whales) will suffocate under anesthesia. This also forbids them from sleeping, they rest only one hemisphere of their brain at a time. 2. Different forms of brain damage Visual information is a cast collection of processed information. Before the image reaches your conscious awareness your brain has applied edge detection, depth and color perception, object recognition, motion sensing, and blind spot extrapolation, among other things. Each of these functions independently and can be impaired or lost without affecting other parts of the brain. There are cases where brain damage to the V5 section of the brain causes motion blindness (sufferers see the world as a collection of static frames, devoid of any concept of motion), likewise people can lose the ability to recognize faces, or recognize objects (these functions occur in different parts of the brain, so while someone might lose the ability to recognize objects they can still recognize faces and vice versa), finally there are people who have lost the ability to process colors. Not only can they no longer see colors, but they lose the ability to recall colors altogether. Since the processing is done in specific areas of the brain, these modules share only the high-level results of their processing with other brain regions. (This is the limited-access part of modularity). It is not possible for all areas of the brain to do everything independently of course, so if they interact with other brain regions, they must receive high level results, not the raw input that a particular module processed. 3. Pain perception This is getting close to your question on emotions and why people don't stick their hand in the fire. It's been found that the perception of pain is handlered in one part of the brain, but what makes pain painful (unpleasent) is handled by an entirely different part of the brain: the anterior cingulate cortex. Damage to this part of the brain (or severing nerves connected to it in an operation called a cingulatomy) brings about the curious phenomenon of pain dissociation. Someone with pain dissociation can provide specific information about the location and intensity of the pain, but it no longer bothers them or causes any distress. An example: Paul Brand, a surgeon and author on the subject of pain recounted the case of a woman who had suffered with a severe and chronic pain for more than a decade: She agreed to a surgery that would separate the neural pathways between her frontal lobes and the rest of her brain. The surgery was a success. Brand visited the woman a year later, and inquired about her pain.
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Bruno says: But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. can this supposed something behind our observations be brought into the field of observation? Can it be observed? If not, forget about this purely logical form. On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to see what happens. People seems to have the same reluctance to let math enter the subject than the old naturalists. Now, the only way for the numbers to win the measure
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
it sounds like Bruno is ontologizing mathematics rather then seeing it as merely a way of knowing or a tool for organizing, classifying, accounting for, and navigating space-time. On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to see what happens. People seems to have the same reluctance to let math enter the subject than the old naturalists. Now, the only way for the numbers to win the measure problem is by self-multiplication, and coherent multiplication of populations, that is sharing stories/computations. The only reason why I can dialog with you must be that we share a 'big number' of similar histories, and
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination, thought, and figures? On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of spiritualism for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The enemy of immaterialism try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is I am dreaming, where comp immaterialism is all numbers are dreaming, and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to see what happens. People seems to have the same reluctance to let math enter the subject than the old naturalists. Now, the only way for the numbers to win the measure problem is by self-multiplication, and coherent multiplication of populations, that is sharing stories/computations. The only reason why I can dialog with you must
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.comwrote: Jason: I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here. I thought we did away with these classical metaphysical speculations. Did you not read Kant? You may be able to prove it but you will never be able to demonstrate or know the identity of it. So you bs. I never claimed to know the identity of it. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
I never claimed to know the identity of it. so then what are you talking about? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Jason: I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here. I thought we did away with these classical metaphysical speculations. Did you not read Kant? You may be able to prove it but you will never be able to demonstrate or know the identity of it. So you bs. I never claimed to know the identity of it. 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. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:55, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here Bruno is too, nevertheless he gives me a headache. even if he was right, I hope hes wrong. You make me feel guilty. My defense is that science is not wishful thinking. The consolation is that comp might be wrong, but many of us will believe it true, and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtual realities spreading in the galaxy and beyond (in most futures). The real question is not do you accept an artificial brain, but do you accept that you daughter marry a man who has already accepted an artificial brain. I can't change the taste of people. The same problem occurs with salvia divinorum. Some find the experience scary. Some find it just wonderful. Perhaps humans want to be ignorant. Truth, and other possible truth, are scary. I think that in the long run the attitude consisting in hiding possible scary ideas is not winning. The longer a lie, or an error, is hidden, the biggest the shock when it is confronted with truth. I say often that Truth wins all the war, without any army. But to be franc, I am not entirely sure of that. Or it can take times. It is a paradox of democracy : people can vote for a dictator. It is the paradox of religion: people seems to accept the argument by authority. Humans follows leaders, like the wolves. They like to belong in club, the mood is not really for introspection, and still less for the obviously not so simple study of machine's introspection. Often I hope myself to be wrong too, but then I hope someone shows me wrong. Young people understand the seven first steps without too much problem, and they see the problem (in big and robust universe). Step 8 is conceptually harder, and I am still trying to simplify it and make clearer the logical argument. I have already talked on this (cf the 323-principle). And AUDA is simple in modal terms, but the precise justification of that use is a difficult theorem in logic (Solovay), which sums up (through two formal systems: G and G*) a long chains of key theorems in logic, beginning with Gödel. Logicians often talk in term of axiomatizable theories, but those can be shown essentially equivalent with the recursively enumerable sets (machines, intensional (relative) numbers). Is it so enormous to say that comp needs computer science? Theoretical computer science is born in math, well before computers were build, (excepting some part of Babbage universal machine). They are many amazing results. Bruno On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone watched the movie Contact, in which the structure of the universe was encoded in the transcendental number Pi? What if something like that is what is going on, and that's the answer to all paradoxes? So the physical universe beings with Pi encoded in the Big Bang, chaotically inflates, and eventually cools and contracts back to itself until it is again, exactly the mathematical description of Pi. All consciousness is thus contain with Pi. But then, Pi is just like any other transcendental number! So all transcendental numbers contain all existence F.H. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. From: Jason Resch Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must exist outside sets of axioms altogether. [SPK] I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only exist in our minds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it be possible that our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplistic to define the kind of set that is necessary? ** 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). Compared to B, A explains the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Rex have you studied Spinoza's notion that freedom is the recognition of necessity? If you haven't read Spinoza I would recommend him on this free will/determinism issue. On Jun 9, 8:00 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your while trying to understand. I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting moscow-washington thing, right? In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from the current state that represents me. Each of these paths looks like a possible future from my subjective standpoint. But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not futures they're a series of nows. So, subjectively, I have the illusion of an undetermined future. But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is objectively actualized. So how does this prove what I said false? All those static futures are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way. Even if we say that what constitutes me is a single unbranched path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully determined) future. This is an argument against any determinist theory, or any block-universe theory. It is an argument again compatibilist theory of free will, and an argument against science in general, not just the mechanist hypothesis. Hard determinism is incompatible with science in general? ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as incompatible with science or scientific attitude. I'm not arguing against determinism. I'm fine with determinism and it's consequences. But third person determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. Determinism doesn't prevent your redefined version of free will, which of course isn't free will at all - but rather a psychological coping mechanism disguised as a reasonable position. BUT...I didn't say third person determinism. I said hard determinism...the alternative to the soft determinism of compatibilism. People believing that determinism per se makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. No, people who believe that determinism is incompatible with free will have a firm understanding of the meaning of both determinism and free will. But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? I'm fine with hard determinism. I am a hard determinist...which is the position that determinism is incompatible with free will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
frankly... I don't believe an artificial brain is possible that is Gods trick.. God, in so far as he exists, made it that no artificial brain would ever be possible hence he is God (medieval scholastic logic). and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtual realities spreading in the galaxy and beyond (in most futures). If this is the future... remind me to commit suicide when it comes or start a violent resistance/revolution movement (against these damn crazy mad scientists). the French (post-structuralists) will join with me on this huh? sounds too much like Ghost in the Shell, Terminator, and Matrix huh? get out of town with your sterile and pseudo-godly but in fact godless mad scientist vision. p.s. I like you so don't get mad. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:55, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here Bruno is too, nevertheless he gives me a headache. even if he was right, I hope hes wrong. You make me feel guilty. My defense is that science is not wishful thinking. The consolation is that comp might be wrong, but many of us will believe it true, and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtual realities spreading in the galaxy and beyond (in most futures). The real question is not do you accept an artificial brain, but do you accept that you daughter marry a man who has already accepted an artificial brain. I can't change the taste of people. The same problem occurs with salvia divinorum. Some find the experience scary. Some find it just wonderful. Perhaps humans want to be ignorant. Truth, and other possible truth, are scary. I think that in the long run the attitude consisting in hiding possible scary ideas is not winning. The longer a lie, or an error, is hidden, the biggest the shock when it is confronted with truth. I say often that Truth wins all the war, without any army. But to be franc, I am not entirely sure of that. Or it can take times. It is a paradox of democracy : people can vote for a dictator. It is the paradox of religion: people seems to accept the argument by authority. Humans follows leaders, like the wolves. They like to belong in club, the mood is not really for introspection, and still less for the obviously not so simple study of machine's introspection. Often I hope myself to be wrong too, but then I hope someone shows me wrong. Young people understand the seven first steps without too much problem, and they see the problem (in big and robust universe). Step 8 is conceptually harder, and I am still trying to simplify it and make clearer the logical argument. I have already talked on this (cf the 323-principle). And AUDA is simple in modal terms, but the precise justification of that use is a difficult theorem in logic (Solovay), which sums up (through two formal systems: G and G*) a long chains of key theorems in logic, beginning with Gödel. Logicians often talk in term of axiomatizable theories, but those can be shown essentially equivalent with the recursively enumerable sets (machines, intensional (relative) numbers). Is it so enormous to say that comp needs computer science? Theoretical computer science is born in math, well before computers were build, (excepting some part of Babbage universal machine). They are many amazing results. Bruno On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone watched the movie Contact, in which the structure of the universe was encoded in the transcendental number Pi? What if something like that is what is going on, and that's the answer to all paradoxes? So the physical universe beings with Pi encoded in the Big Bang, chaotically inflates, and eventually cools and contracts back to itself until it is again, exactly the mathematical description of Pi. All consciousness is thus contain with Pi. But then, Pi is just like any other transcendental number! So all transcendental numbers contain all existence F.H. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. From: Jason Resch Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its existence and how is this questionable being distinct from Being as such? You can name-call whatever you want, and you can assert unity... you can make whatever assertions you want in regards to a something no one denies something is. but no one says they know what that Something is, or how it is distinct or different from the something that we are. there is us, and there is IT two somethings one Big and the other small what is the difference... and how can we determine the difference if we know next to nothing in regards to either. so I want to say X and x is but i want to also show us that in fact x is (being) is or in another words is (being) is an x. X = X but that tells us nothing. some people assert a distinction between consciousness and existence... and say that you can't have one without the other but don't really define the distinction or they simply claim that they are identical well that doesn't really help us. so rather then I AM... i must say Something is... which is like say being is unknown or is = x well we already knew that! On Jun 9, 10:11 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. 'making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did.' Right. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition of freedom is that they must have been able to have done otherwise. This alone isn’t sufficient, because quantum randomness (in a non-block context) also makes it possible that they could have done otherwise - but random decisions aren't free either. You say it is impossible that anyone could have done otherwise from what they did. Well what determined what they did? Their mind? Their biology? Their chemistry? The physics of the subatomic motions of the particles in their brain? I don’t think it matters in a “block” context, does it? To say the mind is not doing any decision making because its behavior can be explained at a level where the mind's operation cannot be understood, is like saying a computer is not computing or a car is not driving, because if you look at a computer or a car at a low enough level you see only particles moving in accordance with various forces applied to them. The ability to make decisions is ubiquitous. Ants, wasps, lizards, turtles, mice, dogs - whatever. They can all be said to make decisions. Do ants have free will? Even computers can be said to make decisions...and saying that they do seems just as valid as saying that humans do. Do the computerized monitoring and control systems at nuclear power plants have free will? If they automatically decide to close some valve in response to sensor readings, are they exercising free will? You can render meaningless almost any subject by describing it at the wrong level. Wrong? What would make some level the “wrong” level and another the “right” level? If a subject *can* be described at some level (or should be describable in theory), then that has to be of some significance, doesn’t it? If human behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, just as computer behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, and just as rock behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electons - then this shared “describability” has to tell us something significant - doesn’t it? The fact that all of these things are describable at the same level, the level of quarks and electrons, surely this means something. If humans could *not* be described at the level of quarks and electrons, but computers could, *that* would definitely tell us something significant, wouldn’t it? You might as well say there is no meaningful difference between a cat and a rock, since they are after all, just electrons and quarks. There’s a meaningful difference between a cat and a rock - *to me*. But maybe not in any other sense. If you describe the mind at the correct level, you find it is making decisions. I can interpret it that way, yes. Or I can interpret it as just moving through a sequence of states. I can interpret it either way I want, as the whim strikes me. It’s
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot claim that I am... being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0 in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert something and nothing simultaneously. so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you wouldn't have to make the assertion. It is your logical construction and nothing more. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its existence and how is this questionable being distinct from Being as such? You can name-call whatever you want, and you can assert unity... you can make whatever assertions you want in regards to a something no one denies something is. but no one says they know what that Something is, or how it is distinct or different from the something that we are. there is us, and there is IT two somethings one Big and the other small what is the difference... and how can we determine the difference if we know next to nothing in regards to either. so I want to say X and x is but i want to also show us that in fact x is (being) is or in another words is (being) is an x. X = X but that tells us nothing. some people assert a distinction between consciousness and existence... and say that you can't have one without the other but don't really define the distinction or they simply claim that they are identical well that doesn't really help us. so rather then I AM... i must say Something is... which is like say being is unknown or is = x well we already knew that! On Jun 9, 10:11 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. 'making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did.' Right. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition of freedom is that they must have been able to have done otherwise. This alone isn’t sufficient, because quantum randomness (in a non-block context) also makes it possible that they could have done otherwise - but random decisions aren't free either. You say it is impossible that anyone could have done otherwise from what they did. Well what determined what they did? Their mind? Their biology? Their chemistry? The physics of the subatomic motions of the particles in their brain? I don’t think it matters in a “block” context, does it? To say the mind is not doing any decision making because its behavior can be explained at a level where the mind's operation cannot be understood, is like saying a computer is not computing or a car is not driving, because if you look at a computer or a car at a low enough level you see only particles moving in accordance with various forces applied to them. The ability to make decisions is ubiquitous. Ants, wasps, lizards, turtles, mice, dogs - whatever. They can all be said to make decisions. Do ants have free will? Even computers can be said to make decisions...and saying that they do seems just as valid as saying that humans do. Do the computerized monitoring and control systems at nuclear power plants have free will? If they automatically decide to close some valve in response to sensor readings, are they exercising free will? You can render meaningless almost any subject by describing it at the wrong level. Wrong? What would make some level the “wrong” level and another the “right” level? If a subject *can* be described at some level (or should be describable in theory), then that has to be of some significance, doesn’t it? If human behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, just as computer behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electrons, and just as rock behavior ought to be describable at the level of quarks and electons - then this shared “describability” has to tell us something significant - doesn’t it? The fact that all of these things are describable at the same level, the level of quarks and electrons, surely this means something. If humans could *not* be described at the level of quarks and electrons, but computers could, *that* would
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless absurdities Ha! Well, we all have our off days... We can say that we have information about what we are aware of...but that is not the same as saying that awareness *is* information. Information is a difference that makes a difference. But it has to make a difference *to* someone. Awareness may very well be information, unless you want to make up a piece of information which masquerades as the entity behind information. You say information has to make a difference to someone... very well, but that doesn't get you out of the problem of the enigma-identity of this supposed someone that you think must be at the root of information. Well, I can see how my use of the term “someone” might lead to confusion. However, I didn’t intend to imply the existence of some “supra-experiential” entity. My intended point was that information isn’t something that exists separately from, or more fundamentally than conscious experience. Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. Information is observer-relative. Observers aren’t information- relative. Don't you see your observer is information! Well...no. I don’t see that. Though perhaps we’re using different definitions of “information”. Moving beyond the notion of a observer... I would even claim that observation isn't occurring, neither as a act or process or object or event there is merely the observed. There is merely experience. Representation depends on me. I don’t depend on representation. Wrong. You do depend on representation... but pseudo-representation, you depend on a pseudo-representation or a non-representational invented pseudo-representation. Psuedo-representation? Representation is something you do, not something that you are. Well then what are you! Consciousness. Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little critique: 1. Explanation is subordinate to description. 2. Description is subordinate to observation. 3. Observation is subordinate to experience. 4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience. you distinguish between observation and experience? nonsense. I’m using “observation” as the term for particular instances or aspects of experience. So, no, I don’t actually distinguish between observation and experience in any significant way. However, our explanation of experience can only be justified by appeal to experience - plus reason. Before jumping to explanation of experience you might want to hang out at the problem of description of experience which is an element of experience itself, or in so far as it is possible, a tautology. Does any such description of experience exist? I can describe my experience to you in terms of fundamental concepts which I possess - but unless you have access to those same concepts, then my description won’t make any sense to you. FURTHERMORE you assume there is in existence any such explanation of experience or existence. show me one explanation of experience. even if it existed it would be a mere feature of experience. I don’t assume that there is any sort of ultimate explanation for experience. In fact, I assume that there is not. Do you believe in a objective world or totality? Do you believe in an objective experience of experience-description? Do you believe in a objective reality, universal and totalizing, that can represent itself as such? I believe that conscious experience exists, fundamentally and uncaused. And there’s just the general question of what “reason” means in a deterministic world, or a probabilistic world, or a purely contingent world. Or how about a world which is a vague approximation of all three and more. And more? What is this “more” to which you refer? Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group... w00t w00t! Take that, you other people in this group!!! Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
REx: Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume… using it…. It must have started with either Kant or Hegel… Hegel for sure. We use to use the word soul or spirit, now we like using the word consciousness… it has become very popular. .. apparently etymologically it is related with to know or knowing…. But like I said… in so far as we think of “consciousness” or define “consciousness” it instantly becomes a thought or object of knowledge and not the real thing. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless absurdities Ha! Well, we all have our off days... We can say that we have information about what we are aware of...but that is not the same as saying that awareness *is* information. Information is a difference that makes a difference. But it has to make a difference *to* someone. Awareness may very well be information, unless you want to make up a piece of information which masquerades as the entity behind information. You say information has to make a difference to someone... very well, but that doesn't get you out of the problem of the enigma-identity of this supposed someone that you think must be at the root of information. Well, I can see how my use of the term “someone” might lead to confusion. However, I didn’t intend to imply the existence of some “supra-experiential” entity. My intended point was that information isn’t something that exists separately from, or more fundamentally than conscious experience. Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. Information is observer-relative. Observers aren’t information- relative. Don't you see your observer is information! Well...no. I don’t see that. Though perhaps we’re using different definitions of “information”. Moving beyond the notion of a observer... I would even claim that observation isn't occurring, neither as a act or process or object or event there is merely the observed. There is merely experience. Representation depends on me. I don’t depend on representation. Wrong. You do depend on representation... but pseudo-representation, you depend on a pseudo-representation or a non-representational invented pseudo-representation. Psuedo-representation? Representation is something you do, not something that you are. Well then what are you! Consciousness. Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Rex: I believe that conscious experience exists, fundamentally and uncaused. You believe monadic current of conscious experience is eternal? Then why is your awareness or memory of it so fragile and finite? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little critique: 1. Explanation is subordinate to description. 2. Description is subordinate to observation. 3. Observation is subordinate to experience. 4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience. you distinguish between observation and experience? nonsense. I’m using “observation” as the term for particular instances or aspects of experience. So, no, I don’t actually distinguish between observation and experience in any significant way. However, our explanation of experience can only be justified by appeal to experience - plus reason. Before jumping to explanation of experience you might want to hang out at the problem of description of experience which is an element of experience itself, or in so far as it is possible, a tautology. Does any such description of experience exist? I can describe my experience to you in terms of fundamental concepts which I possess - but unless you have access to those same concepts, then my description won’t make any sense to you. FURTHERMORE you assume there is in existence any such explanation of experience or existence. show me one explanation of experience. even if it existed it would be a mere feature of experience. I don’t assume that there is any sort of ultimate explanation for experience. In fact, I assume that there is not. Do you believe in a objective world or totality? Do you believe in an objective experience of experience-description? Do you believe in a objective reality, universal and totalizing, that can represent itself as such? I believe that conscious experience exists, fundamentally and uncaused. And there’s just the general question of what “reason” means in a deterministic world, or a probabilistic world, or a purely contingent world. Or how about a world which is a vague approximation of all three and more. And more? What is this “more” to which you refer? Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
correction... we use to use many words in the absence of consciousness many words, duads, and triads... consciousness comes from the triad consciousness/unconsciousness/self-consciousness. And Rex why do you say conscious experience isn't that redundant? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group... w00t w00t! Take that, you other people in this group!!! Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
When we talk about consciousness we have to be specific about what mode of consciousness we are referring to there is no consciousness in and of itself that we are aware of so do we mean self-consciousness, other-consciousness, dream-consciousness, form- consciousness or phenomenological consciousness in the concrete, or mental consciousness/phenomenological consciousness in the abstractor we can refer to the apparent disappearance of consciousness all together. but I don't think we can objectify consciousness as a thing in itself... as in consciousness of consciousness. This specificity helps... or we can assume when we talk about consciousness a generality that includes all of these distinctions. This seems to more or less abolish the confusion over the term. -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, machines, entities, etc. Jason is right, computation occurs in arithmetical platonia, even in a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes it necessarily enough (by taking seriously the first and third person distinction). Bruno The latter seems more plausible to me. Rex -- 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 athttp://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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 6/30/2011 11:36 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Just because man invents his model of the world doesn't mean that he is central to the model. The progress of science has all been in the direction of a world view in which man is less special. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities. and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Why by man? Is that not an anthropomorphism? Bruno On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, machines, entities, etc. Jason is right, computation occurs in arithmetical platonia, even in a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes it necessarily enough (by taking seriously the first and third person distinction). Bruno The latter seems more plausible to me. Rex -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
basically you guys don't know what your talking about, especially Bruno with his dream-seed theology but the main purpose this group and these thinkers serve, is to awaken us from our dogmatic slumber the thinking of this group is exceptionally skilled at that it is a perpetual reawakening from your dogmatic slumber. On Jul 1, 12:32 am, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extensasicaion, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities. and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Why by man? Is that not an anthropomorphism? Bruno On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, machines, entities, etc. Jason is right, computation occurs in arithmetical platonia, even in a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes it necessarily enough (by taking seriously the first and third person distinction). Bruno The latter seems more
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:13, B Soroud wrote: man sustains the model and is the basis of it, it has no graspable existence independently of him, we dictate the terms... man is science. Why man? Are you sure it is not the americans? Or perhaps the mammals, or why not the universal numbers. Why man? That seems to me highly anthropocentric. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/30/2011 11:36 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Just because man invents his model of the world doesn't mean that he is central to the model. The progress of science has all been in the direction of a world view in which man is less special. 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 . -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more deeply a universal-machinization. but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? I start from the fact that humans and machines can agree on simple assertion about them. A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. To be clear and avoid misunderstanding, I am not doing philosophy. I do cognitive science/theoretical physics, or theology in the prechristian sense. My starting hypothesis is that my brain (or my generalized brain) is a finite things which can be substituted by a digital machine. I don't know if that is true or not. I just derive the consequences. Bruno On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/ realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities. and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Why by man? Is that not an anthropomorphism? Bruno On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, machines, entities, etc. Jason is right, computation occurs in arithmetical platonia, even in a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is assumed in the
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 01 Jul 2011, at 10:06, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: basically you guys don't know what your talking about, especially Bruno with his dream-seed theology You might try to be more specific. Have you read the UD Argument? If you believe there is flaw, you might try to present it. Bruno but the main purpose this group and these thinkers serve, is to awaken us from our dogmatic slumber the thinking of this group is exceptionally skilled at that it is a perpetual reawakening from your dogmatic slumber. On Jul 1, 12:32 am, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extensasicaion, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities. and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Why by man? Is that not an anthropomorphism? Bruno On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, machines, entities, etc. Jason is right, computation occurs in arithmetical platonia, even in a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is assumed in the rest
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. That is a pretty interesting insight to dwell on. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more deeply a universal-machinization. but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? I start from the fact that humans and machines can agree on simple assertion about them. A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. To be clear and avoid misunderstanding, I am not doing philosophy. I do cognitive science/theoretical physics, or theology in the prechristian sense. My starting hypothesis is that my brain (or my generalized brain) is a finite things which can be substituted by a digital machine. I don't know if that is true or not. I just derive the consequences. Bruno On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities. and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Why by man? Is that not an anthropomorphism? Bruno On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just a way of thinking about our experience? Is it: Recursive relations cause thought. OR: Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational beliefs. I think you are confusing computability, which
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology have you read Plotinus.. wasn't he a transcendentalist and ecstatic he wanted to think or will his way into some transcendent eternity or something. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:00 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. That is a pretty interesting insight to dwell on. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more deeply a universal-machinization. but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? I start from the fact that humans and machines can agree on simple assertion about them. A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. To be clear and avoid misunderstanding, I am not doing philosophy. I do cognitive science/theoretical physics, or theology in the prechristian sense. My starting hypothesis is that my brain (or my generalized brain) is a finite things which can be substituted by a digital machine. I don't know if that is true or not. I just derive the consequences. Bruno On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities. and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man. Why by man? Is that not an anthropomorphism? Bruno On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical propositions is as follows: Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is composite has an eternal objective truth. Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot depend on the choice of the universal base. Lat us continue with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are there? Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition of the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and is therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then in a sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth. For chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all programs must occur. Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider the universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n +1)= Z(n)^2 + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures such as our universe or the computation of your mind. Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of mind? If so, why? Is it that these
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:02, B Soroud wrote: I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology have you read Plotinus.. Yes. I have even study again classical greek to study it, helping myself with four translation. I love it. It is a true scientist. I don't pretend to understand all of it, to be sure, or even to grasp what he means, only that what he says makes much sense with the natural discourse of the universal machines (which studied in theoretical computer sciences). But as I said, my point is scientific in the Popper sense. I pretend that if my brain is machine, then Plotinus is coherently interpretable in computer science/number theory. Given that the theology of machine includes the whole physics, and that the proof is constructive, this statement is experimentally testable. And on the contrary, Aristotle theology is already refuted. I am aware that Aristotle theology is *the* favorite theology of the atheists and of the radical religious conventionalists, which makes platonism rather far form the current paradigm. But that is a contingent fact. wasn't he a transcendentalist and ecstatic What do you mean by that? In what sense would you see this as a critics of Plotinus. he wanted to think or will his way into some transcendent eternity or something. To just define what is a digital machine we need to make sense of the natural numbers and the laws of addition and multiplication, so we do have a notion of transcendent reality of some sort, once we assume comp. We need this for saying yes to a digitalist surgeon who proposes to you an artificial digital brain. I insist: my point is not that this is true, but that once we say yes to such a surgeon (by thought, qua the notion of computation) then Plato is right and Aristotle is wrong (roughly speaking). I use theology in the sense of Plato where GOD = TRUTH by definition (following *some* scholars on this). This makes sense in the comp theory because TRUTH is already not definable (like GOD has no name). But comp allow indirect meta-names, and the logic gives the tools for avoiding some of the typical theological traps (notably the authoritative arguments). TRUTH can be approximated, and GOD can be approached in the private ways (by the machines looking inward). Bruno On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:00 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. That is a pretty interesting insight to dwell on. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more deeply a universal-machinization. but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form? I start from the fact that humans and machines can agree on simple assertion about them. A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. To be clear and avoid misunderstanding, I am not doing philosophy. I do cognitive science/theoretical physics, or theology in the prechristian sense. My starting hypothesis is that my brain (or my generalized brain) is a finite things which can be substituted by a digital machine. I don't know if that is true or not. I just derive the consequences. Bruno On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done. an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that man is the measure of all things, IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/ realties. It is an open question if they
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 7/1/2011 12:13 AM, B Soroud wrote: man sustains the model and is the basis of it, it has no graspable existence independently of him, we dictate the terms... man is science. So why aren't we all young, handsome, and healthy? 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I realize I have been clear on this in some FOR list post, perhaps not here. I don't think I have varied on this. To be conscious, you need only to be universal. I have heard of universality being argued to be necessary (to which I have some sympathy, but not beyond doubt), but not sufficient before. Why do you say that universality is sufficient for consciousness? Surely the machine needs to actually be running the right program in order to be consious. To be self-conscious, and have free-will, you need to be Löbian. I have no doubts that planaria and other worms are conscious, but they have no notion of self and of others (or very crude one). Löbianity is more sophisticated. They can infer proposition on themselves and on others. They can attribute consciousness on others. OK - I understand this. But effectively Loeb's axiom gives rise to self-referential discourse, so it doesn't really add anything over saying something is self-aware to say it is Loebian. It would be nice if the approach gave us some new tests of self-awareness, or even better ways of quantifying the level of thinking. In the arithmetical term, consciousness appears with Robinson Arithmetic (= Peano Arithmetic without the induction axioms), and Löbianity (and self-consciousness) appears with Peano Arithmetic. Löbian entity have the same rich theology (captured *completely* by G and G* at the propositional level). Sufficient or necessary? I find it hard to believe that all RA theorems are consious, but I can accept that some might be, given that a universal machine must appear within RA. So to be conscious, all you need is a brain, or a computer. All animals with a centralized nervous system are probably conscious. Again, I think you can only say it is necessary to have a brain, or a computer, but not sufficient. Unless I'm missing something. Assuming you're identifying free will (or Loebianity) with consciousness, then only selectively granting species might get around the anthropic ant argument. My critics of that argument was more about the use of a form of Absolute Self-sampling assumption. It makes no sense for me to ask what is the probability of being a bacterium, or a human, or an alien. The only probability is the probability to have some conscious state starting from having some conscious state (cf. RSSA versus ASSA). I take it that you find the original doomsday argument as absurd. I don't, so I'm keen to hear other people's rationlisation of why it doesn't work. Even better would be an empirical test that it fails abysmally. Only the ASSA do I find absurd :). But I don't use this. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 11 Jun 2011, at 10:10, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I realize I have been clear on this in some FOR list post, perhaps not here. I don't think I have varied on this. To be conscious, you need only to be universal. I have heard of universality being argued to be necessary (to which I have some sympathy, but not beyond doubt), but not sufficient before. Why do you say that universality is sufficient for consciousness? Surely the machine needs to actually be running the right program in order to be consious. It is very hard to explain in plain, natural, language what happens here, because natural language are not prepared to handle those difficult counter-intuitive self-reference cases. This is new material and is not in my publication, and I assume Digital Mechanism, and that there is no flaw in UDA, and AUDA. Having said this I recall also that no machine are conscious, only person, which are infinities of immaterial, abstract, number relations. Now for the weird thing: I do think now that all universal person (the one canonically attach to any universal entity) are conscious. The point is that it is the consciousness of that unique person. It is the same consciousness. You might call it cosmic consciousness. It is the same that ours, but in a sort of superamnesic state, cut from all possible interfaces with any other universal entity (unlike our little ego). Less than universal might be able to have that consciousness too, in some trivial sense. But keep in mind that universality is very cheap, so I prefer to start with the universal beings. I use universal in the Turing sense, and I can show that bacteria and even viruses are already universal. To be self-conscious, and have free-will, you need to be Löbian. I have no doubts that planaria and other worms are conscious, but they have no notion of self and of others (or very crude one). Löbianity is more sophisticated. They can infer proposition on themselves and on others. They can attribute consciousness on others. OK - I understand this. But effectively Loeb's axiom gives rise to self-referential discourse, It is more Löbianity which comes from correct self-references. Anything believing in numbers, classical logic and enough induction- axioms is Löbian (and thus have the number octo-theology; octo = 8 hypostases). so it doesn't really add anything over saying something is self-aware to say it is Loebian. But I am saying the opposite. That Löbianity gives rise to self- consciousness. They are probably equivalent. It is useful because Löbianity is a well defined computer-theoretical and thus arithmetical notion. Loebianity is also very cheap, although quite stronger than simple universality. But technically Löbianity is universality + Bp - BBp. (or p - Bp for p Sigma_1). It would be nice if the approach gave us some new tests of self-awareness, The approach shows that there is no test possible. I think that this was already intuitively obvious. But any Löbian entity can develop *personal* conviction that some other entity is Löbian (self- conscious), by interacting with it, ... like most of us believe that we are not zombie. This happened to me recently for the octopus and the jumping spiders! or even better ways of quantifying the level of thinking. This is not quantifiable, except by saying: - Universal (Sigma_1 complete) = conscious - Löbian = self-conscious (and there is nothing above that). The rest is history and geography, and leads to incomparable degrees of complexity, which concerns more ingenuity than consciousness. This is structured into a vast lattice structure where only domain dependent competencies can be relatively compared and evaluated (by exams, for example). In the arithmetical term, consciousness appears with Robinson Arithmetic (= Peano Arithmetic without the induction axioms), and Löbianity (and self-consciousness) appears with Peano Arithmetic. Löbian entity have the same rich theology (captured *completely* by G and G* at the propositional level). Sufficient or necessary? I find it hard to believe that all RA theorems are consious, It is RA itself which is conscious, not its theorems. It is the abstract, immaterial, quasi-trivial, person attached to RA which is conscious, not its description (material or not). No material thing is conscious. Bodies are owned by immaterial (software like) person. RA's consciousness is fixed, atemporal, aspatial and unrelated to any manifestation. but I can accept that some might be, given that a universal machine must appear within RA. RA emulates all Löbian machines, including some much more powerful than itself, like ZF, of ZF+high-cardinals. But to confuse RA and the entities that RA emulates is a case of Searle's level confusion. Give me time and I can emulate Einstein's brain, but I will not be
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 10 Jun 2011, at 07:23, Rex Allen wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2011 3:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote: As I always say, free will is the ability to do something stupid. And from an evolutionary point of view, that is actually a useful ability. We are in violent agreement. :-) Get a room, you two. I'll reply to Bruno, et al., tomorrow or Saturday! Must sleep! Have a good dream. Just to be clear I am also in (peaceful) agreement with Brent and Russell. I agree and have also asserted that free will is the ability of doing something bad, wrong or stupid. It is actually the christian definition. It is similar with the Dt - DBf of the Löbian machine (second incompleteness theorem): to be consistent entails the consistency of being inconsistent. Those concepts are related. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 10 Jun 2011, at 00:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:17:46PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I do have a precise theory, (not in my thesis, though) and free-will begins with Löbianity. From this I infer that very plausibly, worms and ants (and perhaps communists) have no free-will, but that spiders, octopus, mice, dogs and humans have it. I thought only homeotermic animals were self-conscious free animals. They can dream and can have empathy, but since recently I accumulate evidence that Löbianity occurs already with many invertebrates. Notably the spider: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakdmcbHuCA This is an interesting variation from you earlier claims, where you were claiming that consciousness was very primitive. I realize I have been clear on this in some FOR list post, perhaps not here. I don't think I have varied on this. To be conscious, you need only to be universal. To be self-conscious, and have free-will, you need to be Löbian. I have no doubts that planaria and other worms are conscious, but they have no notion of self and of others (or very crude one). Löbianity is more sophisticated. They can infer proposition on themselves and on others. They can attribute consciousness on others. In the arithmetical term, consciousness appears with Robinson Arithmetic (= Peano Arithmetic without the induction axioms), and Löbianity (and self-consciousness) appears with Peano Arithmetic. Löbian entity have the same rich theology (captured *completely* by G and G* at the propositional level). So to be conscious, all you need is a brain, or a computer. All animals with a centralized nervous system are probably conscious. To be self-conscious, you need not *much* more, just one more reflexive loop making possible to build an inductiveself-image. It leads to genuine empathy, awareness of death, etc. Löbianity makes an animal as conscious as you and me. It might be considered as the earlier delusion, and enlightenment might be a passage from PA to RA, but I am, of course not sure about this. Are cells and amoebas conscious? That is quite plausible, in this setting, because those are genuinely universal. The genome of Escherichia Coli (bacterium) is Turing universal, making even bacteria conscious, but they lack Löbianity, and they might lack any sense of self-consciousness. In fact we can equate the consciousness of those lower creature with the consciousness of RA, or of any universal numbers (sigma_1 complete theories). So consciousness, as opposed to Löbianity, remains rather primitive. Assuming you're identifying free will (or Loebianity) with consciousness, then only selectively granting species might get around the anthropic ant argument. My critics of that argument was more about the use of a form of Absolute Self-sampling assumption. It makes no sense for me to ask what is the probability of being a bacterium, or a human, or an alien. The only probability is the probability to have some conscious state starting from having some conscious state (cf. RSSA versus ASSA). Mind you, there are an awful lot of spiders - on my suburban block, I would estimate a population of several thousand individuals, making up perhaps 30-50 species, living on an area of land containing 4 humans (and not many more mammals, I might add). You might need to limit it to just some spider species - after all, I would expect a great variation in spider intelligence. Yes. My point was about jumping spiders. But here too, there are many sorts, in fact more than 6000 species. One thing I would like to ask is how you would objectively infer Loebianity in a non-communicative species? That would indeed be a step forward if we could do this arthropods. That is why it is typically something you will infer by yourself when you have developed special relationship with the animal. I have some friend who have (giant tropical) spiders as pets and I was a bit skeptical when they told me that such relations were empathic, and thus communicative at some level. Having looked at many videos on jumping spiders, I have come to the conclusion that, after all, they might be right (with a high degree of plausibility). It is amazing, but it looks like we can develop a bond with some spider! I suspected this a little bit. I *do* suffer from some arachnophobia, and it might have been partially related with a quasi- unconscious feeling that, when we chase a spider, the animal *knows* that you exist and are there, and has an idea of what you try to do. Now, I don't think that ants have Löbianity. They are conscious, but never seems to attribute consciousness or personality to you (unlike cats, dogs and now spiders (and octopus)). Spiders have free will :) Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your while trying to understand. I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting moscow-washington thing, right? In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from the current state that represents me. Each of these paths looks like a possible future from my subjective standpoint. But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not futures they're a series of nows. So, subjectively, I have the illusion of an undetermined future. But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is objectively actualized. So how does this prove what I said false? All those static futures are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way. Even if we say that what constitutes me is a single unbranched path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully determined) future. This is an argument against any determinist theory, or any block- universe theory. It is an argument again compatibilist theory of free will, and an argument against science in general, not just the mechanist hypothesis. Hard determinism is incompatible with science in general? ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as incompatible with science or scientific attitude. But third person determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. People believing that determinism per se makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your while trying to understand. I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting moscow-washington thing, right? In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from the current state that represents me. Each of these paths looks like a possible future from my subjective standpoint. But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not futures they're a series of nows. So, subjectively, I have the illusion of an undetermined future. But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is objectively actualized. So how does this prove what I said false? All those static futures are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way. Even if we say that what constitutes me is a single unbranched path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully determined) future. This is an argument against any determinist theory, or any block-universe theory. It is an argument again compatibilist theory of free will, and an argument against science in general, not just the mechanist hypothesis. Hard determinism is incompatible with science in general? ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as incompatible with science or scientific attitude. I'm not arguing against determinism. I'm fine with determinism and it's consequences. But third person determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. Determinism doesn't prevent your redefined version of free will, which of course isn't free will at all - but rather a psychological coping mechanism disguised as a reasonable position. BUT...I didn't say third person determinism. I said hard determinism...the alternative to the soft determinism of compatibilism. People believing that determinism per se makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. No, people who believe that determinism is incompatible with free will have a firm understanding of the meaning of both determinism and free will. But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? I'm fine with hard determinism. I am a hard determinist...which is the position that determinism is incompatible with free will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as incompatible with science or scientific attitude. But third person determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. People believing that determinism per se makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? I think your position rests on an invalid conflation between the fact that it posits multiple *actual* futures, all of which *will* occur - and the folk intuition that there are multiple *possible* futures, and that it is *ultimately* our conscious experience of making a choice which determines which one of those possible futures becomes actual. You say the former, but in doing so you allude to the latter. Which is true of all compatibilist positions...and that's why compatibilists insist on redefining existing words like free will and choice and responsibility. Because if you don't re-use those words - retaining their flavor without their substance - it becomes impossible for compatibilists to connect to their traditional meaning in any convincing way. Using less misleading terms would make it obvious that compatibilism has nothing to do with free will at all. Compatibilism is about building a world view that makes it possible for society to continue largely as before while accepting determinism. Dr. StrangeDennett: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Determinism. Repurposing the term free will is a propaganda move, to make the medicine go down easier. Rex -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. 'making it impossible that anyone could have done otherwise than they actually did.' You say it is impossible that anyone could have done otherwise from what they did. Well what determined what they did? Their mind? Their biology? Their chemistry? The physics of the subatomic motions of the particles in their brain? To say the mind is not doing any decision making because its behavior can be explained at a level where the mind's operation cannot be understood, is like saying a computer is not computing or a car is not driving, because if you look at a computer or a car at a low enough level you see only particles moving in accordance with various forces applied to them. You can render meaningless almost any subject by describing it at the wrong level. You might as well say there is no meaningful difference between a cat and a rock, since they are after all, just electrons and quarks. If you describe the mind at the correct level, you find it is making decisions. You say it is impossible that the decision it makes could have been otherwise. This is good for the mind, it means it is guaranteed that its will is carried out. That said, I don't mean to say there are not interesting implications for some of the concepts discussed on this list, such as the definition of personal identity or the view that we are all part of one mind/self/soul. Regarding personal identity, does it make sense to punish the 50 year old man with a prison sentence if it was a different person who committed the act 20 years ago? (If you regard the two as different persons). Further, is there any role of punishment / retribution in the justice system when had we been born in another persons shoes we would have made the same decisions and ended up in the same place as that person? If ultimately we are the same person, we should have much more compassion and understanding for others and their actions. 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 09 Jun 2011, at 18:20, Rex Allen wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as incompatible with science or scientific attitude. But third person determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. People believing that determinism per se makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? I think your position rests on an invalid conflation between the fact that it posits multiple *actual* futures, This is derived from the *assumption* that we are Turing emulable. And that is the main point. Then quantum interferences are hard to explained without that fact; so QM can be seen as a confirmation of that proposition (but with comp it is more multi-dreams than multi- worlds, but as a mathematician I don't worry too much on vocabulary). all of which *will* occur - They just exist. It is provable in Robinson Arithmetic that they exist and verify the condition of being pieces of computations. and the folk intuition that there are multiple *possible* futures, I am not studying the semantics of natural languages. That is one intuition among many others. and that it is *ultimately* our conscious experience of making a choice which determines which one of those possible futures becomes actual. It is our conscious choice which determines the normal realities. If you jump out of a window, the probability is high that you will have problems in the normal neighborhoods. At that level the ethic are the same. It is just false that everything happens with the same relative measure, and we can act on that relative measure by decision and action. No reason to be fatalist. You say the former, but in doing so you allude to the latter. Which is true of all compatibilist positions...and that's why compatibilists insist on redefining existing words like free will and choice and responsibility. Oh? But then define free-will. This is the most debated term of philosophy. I have given a definition of it, which is of course a compatibilist one. What is your definition. It is not a primitive term. What is your theory? Because if you don't re-use those words - retaining their flavor without their substance - it becomes impossible for compatibilists to connect to their traditional meaning in any convincing way. You say so, but the point is that not only free-will makes sense with machines, but we have the tool to relate it to consciousness and intelligence, but also to the big one without name, and the inner God. We do have an arithmetical understanding of neoplatonism. The theology of the universal numbers is *very* rich (provably beyond the mathematics available to the machine). I am just saying that comp leads to Plato, and not to Aristotle. Using less misleading terms would make it obvious that compatibilism has nothing to do with free will at all. Compatibilism is about building a world view that makes it possible for society to continue largely as before while accepting determinism. That is a process of intention (we say in french). It means that you attribute me an intention which I have not. On the contrary, I show that the universal numbers are universal dissident and that they can defeat all complete theories we would build on them. You are just confusing third person views with first person views. You confuse G, G* and S4Grz, dixit the machine. You are the one having a reductionist view of machine and numbers, by exempting them from free-will, and, I guess consciousness. You are the one saying that they are dumb. I am the one saying that we can already listen to them, and that they already have an incredibly interesting discourse. Dr. StrangeDennett: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Determinism. Repurposing the term free will is a propaganda move, to make the medicine go down easier. Science redefines the term all the times. The only thing which counts is to see if we agree with the theories and their consequences. What is your theory? I am afraid I did already ask you this, and that you said you have none. If that is the case, I am not sure what you are talking about. Hmm... I see in your other post that you think free will does not exist. Well read my answer there. 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.
