Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

"Seems" ? To me any affirmation about "matter" seems like religion.

Panpsychism is an adhoc idea constructed by materialists still afraid of 
letting go of the fairy-tale "matter" and go full idealism.

On Monday, 29 April 2019 22:08:49 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Of
>  
>  "matter is dreamed" 
>
>   or "matter [*the only basic substance**] possesses psychical 
> properties"
>
> the second seems more like science.
>
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[cloudversed]

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
>>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:

 Consciousness. Red is red.

 On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 
> does one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 
>

>
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> That is a good point.
>>
>> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:
>>
>> *Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.*
>> - 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they 
>> don’t eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I 
>> have no more any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like 
>> saying that apple are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are 
>> black spot. 
>>
>> To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could 
>> clarify anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very 
>> different things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed 
>> to their (local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital 
>> mechanism, but one is far more general than the other, and once 
>> (consciousness) is responsible from creating, in some sense, the other 
>> (matter).
>>
>> Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance 
>> of consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities 
>> (phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to 
>> the laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws 
>> of Boole and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical 
>> logic + the laws of self-reference).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
>
> Matter - in the panpsychist view - obeys "the laws of physics", but those 
> "laws" are are an incomplete theory of matter.
>
> There is a physical and psychical aspect to any complete theory of matter 
> - in the panpsychist view.
>
> There may be an immaterialist science, and the pro-"matter" people may 
> have some 'splainin' to do, but in the panpsychist context, matter is both 
> physical and psychical.
>
>
> The problem with panpsychism, is in “pan”, not in psychisme. Then I have 
> no clue what it could mean that matter is psychical. With mechanism, matter 
> is dreamed, never experienced. There is no matter per se.It cannot be 
> psychical, because it cannot be, at all.
>
> Bruno
>
>
Of
 
 "matter is dreamed" 

  or "matter [*the only basic substance**] possesses psychical 
properties"

the second seems more like science.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Monday, 29 April 2019 16:23:48 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 18:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the 
>> book, existance is first the act of self-reference of 
>> looking-back-at-itself and thus creating the first object: "I am". Then 
>> because of emergence 
>>
>>
>> Emergence from what? How? Why?
>>
>> How could “I am” be an object? It is a proposition about some possible 
>> object “I”, how do you define “I”?
>>
>>
> Emergence from looking-back-at-itself. With each looking-back-at-itself 
> self-reference enriches itself. How and why I don't know. 
>
>
> I can make sense of this in the Mechanist frame. But there we make the 
> “ontology” (what we assume at the start) very clear, and very simple. 
> Staring from consciousness is like starting from the answer, to me.
>

Well... you have to start with the data that you have. And the data is: 
colors, sounds, tastes, emotions, etc., not "particles", "fields", 
"gravity", etc. Those "physical" things are just conceptual extrapolations 
starting from the real data that lies in consciousness. And they are even 
awful extrapolations. Read my paper "The Quale of Time" in which I prove 
there is no physical time, to truly understand how the concept of "physical 
time" is such an awful extrapolation starting from shallow looks at the 
time of consciousness. 
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
Time in consciousness is retentional, and the nature of retention makes any 
concept of "succession" incoherent.


>
>
> "I am" is an object because that's what happens when the unformalizable 
> self-reference looks-back-at-itself: it finds itself, and finding of itself 
> is necessarily an object. So since on the first looking-back-at-itself 
> there is nothing else there except itself, it will find itself as an 
> object. So the "I" is the first object with which self-reference identifies 
> itself, and automatically that object will have as quality the quality of 
> ontological subjectivity.
>
>
> “I am” is an object, as it is a sentence, a sequence of symbol. But the 
> Maning of “I am” is not an object, but more like an event, a thought, an 
> happening. And if it is the first person self-reference, it is provably not 
> an object, but a lived experience which cannot be associated to anything in 
> the third person way. The first person I is a subject, a person, not really 
> an object in the usual sense. The body is an object, not a soul. 
>

The definition of an "object" is whatever qualia consciousness experiences. 
"I am" is such a quale that consciousness experiences. Therefore, "I am" is 
an object. And I'm not talking about the ego (although ego himself is an 
object). I'm talking about the ontological subjectivity. The ontological 
subjectivity is itself a quality. And is a quality that appears when 
self-reference first finds itself inside itself. If you want, you can take 
self-reference to be the subject, and the "I am" the first object that 
self-reference experiences. Ultimately, since "I am" is actually 
self-reference finding itself, then objects are also parts of the subject. 
Object and subject are both 2 aspects of the same unformalizable 
self-reference. 

>  
>

>
>>
>> where you have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the 
>> first object is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red, 
>>
>>
>> But why would you see red in the first place?
>>
>>
> I don't know. Probably some evolutionary reasons. 
>
>
> That would explain the easy part of the consciousness problem, but not the 
> hard problem (which is the well known, by philosopher of mind or 
> theologian, mind-body problem.
>
> As far as standard vocabulary goes, the hard problem is the problem of 
qualia. If you give another definition, please explain. If you mean the 
mind-body problem to be the hard problem, then there is no hard problem, 
since the body does not exists, being just an idea in consciousness. 

>
>
>  As I said, 99,9% of theoretical computer science is based on the notion 
>> of self-reference, and incompleteness imposes all the nuances already found 
>> by Plato, so we get a very standard classical theory of mind, which 
>> explains most aspect of consciousness and the “illusion” of the physical 
>> reality, and why the illusion does last and why it is first person sharable 
>> (making the physical reality looking real from inside)
>>
>
> What is the "self" in your "self-reference” ?
>
>
>
> That is not easy to explain shortly. In the theology of the machine, 
> counting large, there are 8 notion of selves. Counting even larger, there 
> are 4 + 4*infinity notion of self, as the material selves are graded, and 
> admits infinities of variants.
> The two main self are the 3p-self and the 1p-self. The 3p-self is rather 
> 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, at 12:02, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 19 Apr 2019, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>>> 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia 
>>> of colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You 
>>> cannot see a color if that color is not emergent upon black-and-white (or 
>>> more specifically shades-of-gray). You cannot experience music if music is 
>>> not emergent upon sounds. You cannot taste chocolate if chocolate is not 
>>> emergent upon sweet. You cannot understand Pythagoras Theorem if the 
>>> understanding of Pythagoras Theorem doesn't emerge upon the understandings 
>>> of triangles, angles, lengths, etc. And this is real emergence, because you 
>>> really get new existent entities that never existed before in the history 
>>> of existence. God himself never experienced these qualia. 
>> 
>> Ok, I think I understand your presentation better now. You make an 
>> interesting point, I don't think I ever considered emergence purely on the 
>> side of qualia as you describe.
>> 
>> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you 
>> say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as 
>> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without 
>> implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a 
>> piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that 
>> the first two have something in common that distinguishes them from the 
>> third, and you can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could 
>> say that the chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the 
>> spoonful of sugar not so much. You can also label this abstraction with some 
>> word. Without empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more 
>> meaningful than another.
> 
> Do you really mean “without empirical grounding”, or “without experiential 
> grounding”.
> 
> The “empirical grounding” seems to me still too much “quanti”. 

You are right. I guess what I mean is something more like "without empirically 
grounded models/theories (I don't know anymore :)"

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know about 
>> sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) basic 
>> flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into the pure 
>> qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical relation and 
>> emergence becomes nonsensical again. There's just a field of qualia.
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't understand your second part of the question regarding our 
>>> "cognitive processes". Are you referring to our specific form of human 
>>> consciousness ? I don't think this is only restricted to our human 
>>> consciousness, for the reason that it happens to all qualia that we have. 
>>> All qualia domains are structured in an emergent way.
>> 
>> I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by repetition, 
>> like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I to find this 
>> interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For example, that our 
>> brain requires a certain amount of variety in its inputs, otherwise it tends 
>> to a simpler state were apprehension of meaning is no longer possible. In 
>> other words, I am proposing a plumber-style explanation, and asking you 
>> why/if you think it can be discarded?
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) The main ideas in my book are the emergent structure of consciousness 
>>> and the self-reference which gives birth to the emergent structure. The 
>>> ideas about self-reference that I have are rooted in phenomenology. First I 
>>> observe that consciousness is structured in an emergent way, and then I 
>>> conclude that the reason it is like this is because there is an entity 
>>> called "self-reference" that looks-back-at-itself and in this process 
>>> includes the previously existing self and brings a new transcendent self 
>>> into existence, like in the case of colors emerging on top of 
>>> black-and-white.
>> 
>> I have the problem above with the first part of what you say, but I like the 
>> second part.
> 
> Using the theory of machine self-reference (which is really the base of the 
> whole of theoretical computer science or recursion theory), we have a try 
> pique of “self”:
> 
> G (third person self-reference which are rationally justifiable modulo the 
> bet on the substitution level)
> It is close for Necessitation, and admit the Löb’s axiom (as a theorem)
> 
> G* (third person self-reference, rationally justifiable or not. 
> Incompleteness assures that G is properly included in G*). It NOT closed for 
> necessitation, but admit the Löb axiom (again as a (meta-theorem) about the 
> sound machines).
> 
> S4Grz (first person self-reference, non definable by the machine, and 
> typically on 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Apr 2019, at 09:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Computations are observer-relative.

Th results of computations are observer-relative, but the computations are 
absolute, by the Church-Turing thesis.

It is easy to write one simple program which generates all programs, in all 
programming languages, and generate all computations. I called that a 
“Universal Dovetailer”. See “Conscience & Mécanisme” appendix to see a code for 
it given in LISP.




> Thoughts are observer-absolutes.

OK.

Bruno




> 
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 22:09:20 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> They are enough to explain any universe in which conscious thoughts are 
> computations.??
> 
> Brent 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Apr 2019, at 08:24, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-5, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>> Consciousness. Red is red.
>> 
>> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one 
>> claim as final - i.e., that ontology is the "true" one? 
> 
> 
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> That is a good point.
>> 
>> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:
>> 
>> Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.
>> - 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
>>  
>> 
> 
> Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they don’t 
> eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I have no 
> more any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like saying 
> that apple are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are black spot. 
> 
> To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could 
> clarify anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very 
> different things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed to 
> their (local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital mechanism, 
> but one is far more general than the other, and once (consciousness) is 
> responsible from creating, in some sense, the other (matter).
> 
> Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance of 
> consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities 
> (phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to the 
> laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws of 
> Boole and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical logic 
> + the laws of self-reference).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> Matter - in the panpsychist view - obeys "the laws of physics", but those 
> "laws" are are an incomplete theory of matter.
> 
> There is a physical and psychical aspect to any complete theory of matter - 
> in the panpsychist view.
> 
> There may be an immaterialist science, and the pro-"matter" people may have 
> some 'splainin' to do, but in the panpsychist context, matter is both 
> physical and psychical.
> 
> @philipthrift
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Final answer (What is matter?):
> 
> Matter is the result of mixing arithmetic and experience.

In that case, we might agree completely (up to possible precision which could 
be needed here). But with mechanism, matter is really due to the mixing of 
arithmetic, for the many bodies description possible, and truth, which happens 
to have an important experiential aspect, except that we have to assume the 
numbers to define what is a digital machine. 

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, cloudver...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>> Consciousness. Red is red.
>> 
>> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one 
>> claim as final - i.e., that ontology is the "true" one? 
> 
> 
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> That is a good point.
>> 
>> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:
>> 
>> Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.
>> - 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
>>  
>> 
> 
> Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they don’t 
> eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I have no 
> more any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like saying 
> that apple are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are black spot. 
> 
> To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could 
> clarify anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very 
> different things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed to 
> their (local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital mechanism, 
> but one is far more general than the other, and once (consciousness) is 
> responsible from creating, in some sense, the other (matter).
> 
> Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance of 
> consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities 
> (phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to the 
> laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws of 
> Boole and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical logic 
> + the laws of self-reference).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> Matter - in the panpsychist view - obeys "the laws of physics", but those 
> "laws" are are an incomplete theory of matter.
> 
> There is a physical and psychical aspect to any complete theory of matter - 
> in the panpsychist view.
> 
> There may be an immaterialist science, and the pro-"matter" people may have 
> some 'splainin' to do, but in the panpsychist context, matter is both 
> physical and psychical.

The problem with panpsychism, is in “pan”, not in psychisme. Then I have no 
clue what it could mean that matter is psychical. With mechanism, matter is 
dreamed, never experienced. There is no matter per se.It cannot be psychical, 
because it cannot be, at all.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 21:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/26/2019 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
>>> ontology?
>> 
>> With mechanism, the combinators are enough, or the natural numbers, or the 
>> lambda expression.
> 
> They are enough to explain any universe in which conscious thoughts are 
> computations.?? But there is no evidence this narrows the field down very 
> much.??


It narrows physics completely. Physics becomes a branch of machine theology, 
itself a branch of arithmetic.

It does not narrow up to geography and history, as they will be quite “name” of 
them.




> That some kind of statistics will pick out a unique reality seems like 
> wishful thinking.

Not, that has been verified and tested. It is not wishful thinking, it is a 
theorem, in the only theology that you can get from the mechanist hypothesis. 
This is proved in all details in some of my papers.It requires only the belief 
in the sigma_1 truth, or the partial computable, which is unique by Church 
thesis (no need of the “yes doctor” here). It is the “miracle of Gödel” which 
makes the epistemic notion of computable in a definite mathematical theory. The 
theology of the machine is the same in all interpretations/models of 
arithmetic, and that entails that the physics is the same for all universal 
machine. The laws of physics are provably laws, with mechanism. This is better 
than physics, which, when used in metaphysics, is unable to differentiate 
geography from physics. 

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 19:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/26/2019 12:03 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com  
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote: 
>> > The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may 
>> > "approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but 
>> > unless there is some sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the 
>> > way things will always be. 
>> 
>> Right.?? But the approximation is at the level of predictions 
>> approximating observable facts.?? At the level of ontology our theory can 
>> be completely off. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> But off of what?
> 
> Off that of a better theory we've found.
> 
>> 
>> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one 
>> claim as final - i.e., that ontology is the "true" one???
>> 
>> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
>> ontology?
>> 
>> Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know if 
>> it's final even if it is.
> 
> Right.??

OK.



> Even if we find the correct theory of everything we still won't be able to 
> know it's correct with certainty.??

Indeed. Provably so in the theology of the universal machine.




> That's how science differs from theology...it's never certain.??

That’s how science differ from pseudo-science, including pseudo-theology, which 
is what you get when we separate theology from science. That separation is done 
by tyran to exploit people, only.




> Even "facts" and "data" are not certain.??

Yes.



> But they are more certain, in the sense of remaining stable while theories 
> explaining them change.

Hopefully. 

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 18:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> 
>> And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, 
>> existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and 
>> thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence
> 
> Emergence from what? How? Why?
> 
> How could “I am” be an object? It is a proposition about some possible object 
> “I”, how do you define “I”?
> 
> 
> Emergence from looking-back-at-itself. With each looking-back-at-itself 
> self-reference enriches itself. How and why I don't know. 

I can make sense of this in the Mechanist frame. But there we make the 
“ontology” (what we assume at the start) very clear, and very simple. Staring 
from consciousness is like starting from the answer, to me.



> "I am" is an object because that's what happens when the unformalizable 
> self-reference looks-back-at-itself: it finds itself, and finding of itself 
> is necessarily an object. So since on the first looking-back-at-itself there 
> is nothing else there except itself, it will find itself as an object. So the 
> "I" is the first object with which self-reference identifies itself, and 
> automatically that object will have as quality the quality of ontological 
> subjectivity.

“I am” is an object, as it is a sentence, a sequence of symbol. But the Maning 
of “I am” is not an object, but more like an event, a thought, an happening. 
And if it is the first person self-reference, it is provably not an object, but 
a lived experience which cannot be associated to anything in the third person 
way. The first person I is a subject, a person, not really an object in the 
usual sense. The body is an object, not a soul. 




> 
> 
>> where you have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the 
>> first object is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red,
> 
> But why would you see red in the first place?
> 
> 
> I don't know. Probably some evolutionary reasons. 

That would explain the easy part of the consciousness problem, but not the hard 
problem (which is the well known, by philosopher of mind or theologian, 
mind-body problem.




> 
> 
>> the logical structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist as 
>> red". (of course, is more complicated, since it includes all the previous 
>> levels, so it is actually something like: "I am vividness, diversity, 
>> memory, time, black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.”)
> 
> This assumes so many things, that it is a bit unclear to me.
> 
> Red doesn't just appear as an object in self-reference. There are certain 
> conditions for the quality of red to be possible to be experienced, such as a 
> pre-existing ability of experiencing visual qualia. So self-reference can 
> only gradually arrive at the experience of red. So when it finally arrives at 
> red, it will already have certain objects in itself with which it already 
> identifies with. So experiencing red is actually a quite complex state of 
> self-reference.

OK.


> 
>  As I said, 99,9% of theoretical computer science is based on the notion of 
> self-reference, and incompleteness imposes all the nuances already found by 
> Plato, so we get a very standard classical theory of mind, which explains 
> most aspect of consciousness and the “illusion” of the physical reality, and 
> why the illusion does last and why it is first person sharable (making the 
> physical reality looking real from inside)
> 
> What is the "self" in your "self-reference” ?


That is not easy to explain shortly. In the theology of the machine, counting 
large, there are 8 notion of selves. Counting even larger, there are 4 + 
4*infinity notion of self, as the material selves are graded, and admits 
infinities of variants.
The two main self are the 3p-self and the 1p-self. The 3p-self is rather well 
known by computer scientist, and can be seen as a control structure, which is 
the ability to refer to its own code, integrally. The language SMALLTALK has 
that control structure build in, and is called “SELF”. It allows a program to 
refer to its code, like in this code for the factorial function:

BEGIN
READ n,
IF n = 0, OUTPUT 1, ELSE (MULTIPLY N TO (APPLY SELF (MINUS N 1).
END

That makes possible to have program answering any question on their code, or 
giving their own code like the amoeba, which is just

BEGIN
OUTPUT SELF
END

If you execute that program, it gives 

BEGIN
OUTPUT SELF
END

.How to implement it? I cana explain in all details, but I give only the basic 
idea, which consist in applying a duplicator to itself. If Dx produces xx, DD 
will produce DD. If Dx produces F(xx), then DD produces F(DD).
It is “diagonalization”. But here, such programs would not stop, and it is a 
bit more tricky to make them stop, as you need to define a special “quote” 
function. We can come back on this. The solution is really given by 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Computations are observer-relative. Thoughts are observer-absolutes.

On Friday, 26 April 2019 22:09:20 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> They are enough to explain any universe in which conscious thoughts are 
> computations.??
>
> Brent 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[cloudversed]

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-5, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:

 Consciousness. Red is red.

 On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 
> does one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 
>

>
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> That is a good point.
>>
>> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:
>>
>> *Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.*
>> - 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they 
>> don’t eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I 
>> have no more any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like 
>> saying that apple are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are 
>> black spot. 
>>
>> To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could 
>> clarify anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very 
>> different things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed 
>> to their (local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital 
>> mechanism, but one is far more general than the other, and once 
>> (consciousness) is responsible from creating, in some sense, the other 
>> (matter).
>>
>> Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance 
>> of consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities 
>> (phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to 
>> the laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws 
>> of Boole and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical 
>> logic + the laws of self-reference).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
>
> Matter - in the panpsychist view - obeys "the laws of physics", but those 
> "laws" are are an incomplete theory of matter.
>
> There is a physical and psychical aspect to any complete theory of matter 
> - in the panpsychist view.
>
> There may be an immaterialist science, and the pro-"matter" people may 
> have some 'splainin' to do, but in the panpsychist context, matter is both 
> physical and psychical.
>
> @philipthrift 
> 
>
>
>
>
Final answer (What is matter?):


*Matter is the result of mixing arithmetic and experience.*

@philipthrift 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[cloudversed]

>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>>
>>> Consciousness. Red is red.
>>>
>>> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:


 What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 
 does one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 

>>>

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> That is a good point.
>
> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:
>
> *Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.*
> - 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
>
>
>
> Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they 
> don’t eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I 
> have no more any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like 
> saying that apple are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are 
> black spot. 
>
> To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could 
> clarify anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very 
> different things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed 
> to their (local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital 
> mechanism, but one is far more general than the other, and once 
> (consciousness) is responsible from creating, in some sense, the other 
> (matter).
>
> Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance 
> of consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities 
> (phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to 
> the laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws 
> of Boole and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical 
> logic + the laws of self-reference).
>
> Bruno
>


Matter - in the panpsychist view - obeys "the laws of physics", but those 
"laws" are are an incomplete theory of matter.

There is a physical and psychical aspect to any complete theory of matter - 
in the panpsychist view.

There may be an immaterialist science, and the pro-"matter" people may have 
some 'splainin' to do, but in the panpsychist context, matter is both 
physical and psychical.

@philipthrift 




 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/26/2019 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some 
final ontology?


With mechanism, the combinators are enough, or the natural numbers, or 
the lambda expression.


They are enough to explain any universe in which conscious thoughts are 
computations.?? But there is no evidence this narrows the field down very 
much.?? That some kind of statistics will pick out a unique reality seems 
like wishful thinking.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/26/2019 12:03 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote:
> The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may
> "approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code
above), but
> unless there is some sort of unforeseen revolution coming,
that's the
> way things will always be.

Right.?? But the approximation is at the level of predictions
approximating observable facts.?? At the level of ontology our
theory can
be completely off.

Brent


But off of what?


Off that of a better theory we've found.



What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 
does one claim as*final* - i.e., /that /ontology is the "true" one?


If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some 
final ontology?


Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't 
know if it's final even if it is.


Right.?? Even if we find the correct theory of everything we still won't 
be able to know it's correct with certainty.?? That's how science differs 
from theology...it's never certain.?? Even "facts" and "data" are not 
certain.?? But they are more certain, in the sense of remaining stable 
while theories explaining them change.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, 
> existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and 
> thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence 
>
>
> Emergence from what? How? Why?
>
> How could “I am” be an object? It is a proposition about some possible 
> object “I”, how do you define “I”?
>
>
Emergence from looking-back-at-itself. With each looking-back-at-itself 
self-reference enriches itself. How and why I don't know. 
"I am" is an object because that's what happens when the unformalizable 
self-reference looks-back-at-itself: it finds itself, and finding of itself 
is necessarily an object. So since on the first looking-back-at-itself 
there is nothing else there except itself, it will find itself as an 
object. So the "I" is the first object with which self-reference identifies 
itself, and automatically that object will have as quality the quality of 
ontological subjectivity.

>
>
> where you have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the 
> first object is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red, 
>
>
> But why would you see red in the first place?
>
>
I don't know. Probably some evolutionary reasons. 

>
>
> the logical structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist 
> as red". (of course, is more complicated, since it includes all the 
> previous levels, so it is actually something like: "I am vividness, 
> diversity, memory, time, black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.”)
>
>
> This assumes so many things, that it is a bit unclear to me.
>
> Red doesn't just appear as an object in self-reference. There are certain 
conditions for the quality of red to be possible to be experienced, such as 
a pre-existing ability of experiencing visual qualia. So self-reference can 
only gradually arrive at the experience of red. So when it finally arrives 
at red, it will already have certain objects in itself with which it 
already identifies with. So experiencing red is actually a quite complex 
state of self-reference.

 As I said, 99,9% of theoretical computer science is based on the notion of 
> self-reference, and incompleteness imposes all the nuances already found by 
> Plato, so we get a very standard classical theory of mind, which explains 
> most aspect of consciousness and the “illusion” of the physical reality, 
> and why the illusion does last and why it is first person sharable (making 
> the physical reality looking real from inside)
>

What is the "self" in your "self-reference" ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good point.
> 
> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:
> 
> Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.
> - 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
>  
> 

Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they don’t 
eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I have no more 
any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like saying that apple 
are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are black spot. 

To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could clarify 
anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very different 
things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed to their 
(local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital mechanism, but one 
is far more general than the other, and once (consciousness) is responsible 
from creating, in some sense, the other (matter).

Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance of 
consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities 
(phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to the 
laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws of Boole 
and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical logic + the 
laws of self-reference).

Bruno





> 
> 
> -@philipthrift 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
> Consciousness. Red is red.
> 
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> But off of what?
> 
> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one 
> claim as final - i.e., that ontology is the "true" one? 
> 
> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
> ontology?
> 
> Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know if 
> it's final even if it is.
> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 09:03, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may 
> > "approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but 
> > unless there is some sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the 
> > way things will always be. 
> 
> Right.?? But the approximation is at the level of predictions 
> approximating observable facts.?? At the level of ontology our theory can 
> be completely off. 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> But off of what?
> 
> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one 
> claim as final - i.e., that ontology is the "true" one? 


Any Turing universal machine will do the work. Physics (and theology) is the 
same, independent of the choice of the initial theory, provided it is Turing 
universal. I have already given three equivalent theories.

It also should not admit axiom of infinity, nor the induction axioms (I have 
still some doubt here).




> 
> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
> ontology?

With mechanism, the combinators are enough, or the natural numbers, or the 
lambda expression.



> 
> Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know if 
> it's final even if it is.

We can never know, but if we *assume* mechanism, they we can know what I say 
above, relatively to the mechanist assumption. It is more a belief than a 
knowledge, but in science there is only belief, and only God (Truth) “knows” if 
that is knowledge or belief. Science, especially theology, is necessarily 
modest, when we assume mechanism.

Bruno




> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 22:42, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of 
>> number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing 
>> nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).
>> 
>> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy between 
>> the physics extracted from arithmetic), it is just premature to assume some 
>> material world, especially for singularising some computations, which would 
>> be like invoking a god, indeed.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don't get  "physics extracted form arithmetic”:
> 
> It shows that you are sane of mind!
> 
> It is not obvious. I suggest you read my sane04 paper, and ask me question. 
> The first half (the experience in 8 steps) is the version for non 
> mathematician, except at steps 8, you need to know that the computations are 
> arithmetical notion.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> There are dozens of so-called quantum-gravity theories that have been 
>> written over the past 40 years. Including the dark matter, dark energy, 
>> cosmological inflation variants, maybe dozens of dozens theories. Most on 
>> arXiv.
> 
> But that is physics. Not metaphysics. 
> 
> With mechanism, physics is emerging from the statistics on all computations, 
> that entails already a version of “many-world”. When the math is done, we get 
> very close to Isham-Gell-man-Hartle-Omnes-Griffith version of the 
> many-histories interpretation of quantum mechanics, except that here it is 
> deduce from arithmetic (through the mathematical theory of self-reference, 
> mainly due to Gödel).
> 
> 
>> 
>> All these to some degree are just as good as the other in the sense that 
>> there is nothing wrong with their mathematics.
> 
> Not one equation of physics works with mechanism. It seems to work, but only 
> because it uses a brain-mind identity thesis, which does not work with 
> mechanism. To predict an eclipse with physics, you need to postulate you are 
> not reconstituted elsewhere, and this cannot work with mechanism, as you are 
> reconstituted “elsewhere” ad infinitum.
> 
> Please read the more detailed explanations in my paper, or in this list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> You put "what follows from what" of one ot those theories in a theorem 
>> proving checking system and they should check out according to following 
>> mathematical rules.
>> 
>> The only way to "weed them out" is with data from observations of a 
>> supposedly actual real world out there. Doesn't that suggest an "external" 
>> material reality? Otherwise, why do experiments or record observations if 
>> all theories are "mathematically" neutral?
> 
> On the contrary, the self-reference are so constraining that there is only 
> one mathematical physics: the same for all universal number. It does not 
> depends on the choice of the initial phi_i (enumeration of the partial 
> computable functions, or programmable partial functions).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> And there are formulations of QM (like Dowker's "histories") where there is 
>> no "quantum logic" involved.It can be dispensed with.
> 
> ?
> 
> For one, you might gives a reference. Dowker histories are the same as Omnes 
> and Griffith, as far as I know, and it obeys a quantum logic. The many 
> histories works both for the quantum wave, and for arithmetic, and it 
> explains why nature looks like a wave of amplitude of probabilities. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I define "mathematical physics" (re: there is only one mathematical physics) 
> to be any of the mathematical language entities that are "written down" by a 
> human (or AI program!) that propose themselves  to be a code of nature.
> 
> One example is (a version of) The Standard Model equation:
> 
>   
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png 
> 
>   by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilde_Marcolli 
> 
> 
> That's all mathematical physics is: The collection of all such things.

This does not work with mechanism, unless you prove that those equation select 
consciousness in some computation. As those equation assume quantum mechanics, 
which looks like the computationalist (digital mechanist), that code by Conne 
and Marcolli can be true, but it must be derived from much simpler equation, 
when we assume mechanism;




> 
> With underdetermination of (scientific) theories, another mathematical 
> physics could be just as "good" as any current one.

Not with mechanism. Mathematical physics are not just some equation, it has to 
be the only equations compatible with the mechanist theory of consciousness; 
There is no choice 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:47, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:21:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> You forget the quote. I am not sure what is not self-reference, given that I 
> have given two definitions (third person self-reference and first person 
> self-reference, and I have explained the link between (G* proves that they 
> are equivalent, but that the machine cannot see this, making the first person 
> rather mysterious, yet necessarily so).
> 
> There is only 1 definition: the referring-back-at-itself that the Self does 
> from its own internal first-person perspective.

That is captured by the modal nuance “[]p & p”, with “[]” being Gödel’s 
probability predicate, and p being an arithmetical sentences. Unlike the logic 
of “[]”, it obeys to the logic S4, which is the logic of knowledge. It makes 
also the first person “I” non definable by the machine, yet easy to use, as I 
will illustrate with some thought experience, when I have a bit more time.

The key is that []p & p is equivalent to []p, but the equivalence is not 
accessible by the machine, so that despite all modes of self-reference refer 
really to the same truth, it obeys many different logic and mathematics. The 
first person obeys to intutionistit logic, and the first person-plural, as well 
as quanta and qualia obeys quantum logics.




> Everything else is just words-play. 

You should not say negative things, when it is clear you have not study 
alternate theories. 



> 
> 
> No. It is after 30 years of work, and it has been defended as a PhD thesis in 
> mathematics/computer science in 1998.
> 
> What does your number theory has to do for example with color red ?


The colour red is the first person quality accessible to a number when the 
number is in relation to some number relations (like those describing by the 
frequencies of some Electro-Magnetic  wave) in a certain type of computations. 
The explanation is not different from yours, except that consciousness is 
explained, and not assumed. Of course I can only sum up here. I have provide 
longer explanation, but you can find them in my papers. 

Bruno


>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> What does "I survive a functional digital substitution at that level." mean ?


The same as surviving with an artificial heart. But here it is an artficial 
brain, which copy the brain at the right level. For example if you believe that 
your “brain” is the entire physical observable universe, at the resolution of 
string theory, with 10^(10^100) decimals, it means that you would feel no 
difference with an artificial or virtual rendering of your brain when it is 
replaced by a machine doing that simulation, of your brain, at that minute 
level.

Mechanism its just the thesis that we are machine, and a machine is mainly 
something which can be fixed, in principle. 

You might read my papers, where I explain with more details. I will say more in 
some possible answer to John Clark, soon enough.

You should appreciate, because the universal machine already agree with some of 
your main conclusion, but then mechanism explains also consciousness and 
experience, without assuming them.

Bruno



> 
> On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:13:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to 
>> me that you just make a random connection.
> 
> I assume the indexical digital mechanist hypothesis, which assume that there 
> exists a level of description of myself such that I survive a functional 
> digital substitution at that level.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don't understand anything. Where is consciousness in all that you said ?

I did not aboard this in this post, but have already describe to you, I think, 
that I define consciousness as something which, from the point of view of the 
machine appears to be

- true
- immediately knowable,
- indubitable,
- non provable to any other being,
- non definable (but meta-definable with a reference to truth, which is itself 
non definable (cf Tarski)).

Then it is a theorem, and some standard definition, that all universal machine 
is conscious, and all Löbian machine (those who know that they are universal) 
self-conscious.

Bruno


> 
> On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:04:49 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything.
>> 
>> On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>  With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some 
>> other numbers/machines.
> 
> You ignore that the notion of computation is a purely arithmetical notion.
> 
> Fix one universal machinery (an enumeration of all programs in some Turing 
> universal formalism, like the recursive enumeration of the program (with one 
> natural number input) of the programs written in LISP, say, or take the 
> combinator (see the recent thread on them). I note phi_i the corresponding 
> functions (computes by those programs). We can identify the natural number I 
> with the program computing ph_i, then a universal number u is a program such 
> that phi_i() = phi_x(y). U emulates x on y, and is universal, as it 
> does that for all x.  is a fixed bijection between NxN and N.
> 
> The number is the code that the digitalist surgeon might temporarily put on 
> some disk, and which will be emulated by Nature when you are reconstituted, 
> like after a Digital brain transplant (which is possible, as I assume 
> Mechanism).
> 
> Note that the relation phi_x(y) = z is definable in pure arithmetic. No need 
> of any assumption in physics to define the notion of digital machine. 
> 
> You might need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science, 
> like the very good book by N. Cutland 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Computability-Introduction-Recursive-Function-Theory/dp/0521294657
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 09:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> That's precisely what exists: experiences.

I agree that experience exists, but I want to explain them by something simpler 
concept. With mechanism, we are forced to explain both the psychological 
experience and the physical experiences (and experiments) from arithmetic. It 
works rather well until now.

To put experience in the ontology seems like to avoid trying to explain them.



> 
> And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, 
> existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and 
> thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence

Emergence from what? How? Why?

How could “I am” be an object? It is a proposition about some possible object 
“I”, how do you define “I”?



> where you have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the first 
> object is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red,

But why would you see red in the first place?



> the logical structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist as 
> red". (of course, is more complicated, since it includes all the previous 
> levels, so it is actually something like: "I am vividness, diversity, memory, 
> time, black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.”)

This assumes so many things, that it is a bit unclear to me.

As I said, 99,9% of theoretical computer science is based on the notion of 
self-reference, and incompleteness imposes all the nuances already found by 
Plato, so we get a very standard classical theory of mind, which explains most 
aspect of consciousness and the “illusion” of the physical reality, and why the 
illusion does last and why it is first person sharable (making the physical 
reality looking real from inside)

Bruno





> 
> On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:48:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately 
>> knowable. I see red, thus red exists.
> 
> I see red, so certainly the experience of seeing red exists. I can agree with 
> that. But it is not existence which I see, it is my own consciousness. 
> 
> “Existence” has no meaning if we don’t say what exists, or it means, if taken 
> in your sense, that you define “existence” by consciousness, but that is not 
> the usual sense of existence. 
> 
> What I mean, is that we say that existence is immediately knowable, people 
> will me mislead into believing that what we see exist. If I see something 
> red, “seing red” exists, but it does not mean that it exists a red thing, 
> only an experience of red can be said to exist. I might see a red unicorn, 
> for example, in some dream.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[cloudversed]

That is a good point.

And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism:

*Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.*
- 
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html


-
@philipthrift 




On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Consciousness. Red is red.
>
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> But off of what?
>>
>> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does 
>> one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 
>>
>> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some 
>> final ontology?
>>
>> Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know 
>> if it's final even if it is.
>>
>> - pt
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Consciousness. Red is red.

On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> But off of what?
>
> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does 
> one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 
>
> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
> ontology?
>
> Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know if 
> it's final even if it is.
>
> - pt
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[cloudversed]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may 
> > "approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but 
> > unless there is some sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the 
> > way things will always be. 
>
> Right.?? But the approximation is at the level of predictions 
> approximating observable facts.?? At the level of ontology our theory can 
> be completely off. 
>
> Brent 
>

But off of what?

What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does 
one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 

If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
ontology?

Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know if 
it's final even if it is.

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may 
"approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but 
unless there is some sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the 
way things will always be.


Right.?? But the approximation is at the level of predictions 
approximating observable facts.?? At the level of ontology our theory can 
be completely off.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[cloudversed]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of 
>> number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing 
>> nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).
>>
>> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy 
>> between the physics extracted from arithmetic), it is just premature to 
>> assume some material world, especially for singularising some computations, 
>> which would be like invoking a god, indeed.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> I don't get  "physics extracted form arithmetic”:
>
>
> It shows that you are sane of mind!
>
> It is not obvious. I suggest you read my sane04 paper, and ask me 
> question. The first half (the experience in 8 steps) is the version for non 
> mathematician, except at steps 8, you need to know that the computations 
> are arithmetical notion.
>
>
>
>
> There are dozens of so-called quantum-gravity theories that have been 
> written over the past 40 years. Including the dark matter, dark energy, 
> cosmological inflation variants, maybe dozens of dozens theories. Most on 
> arXiv.
>
>
> But that is physics. Not metaphysics. 
>
> With mechanism, physics is emerging from the statistics on all 
> computations, that entails already a version of “many-world”. When the math 
> is done, we get very close to Isham-Gell-man-Hartle-Omnes-Griffith version 
> of the many-histories interpretation of quantum mechanics, except that here 
> it is deduce from arithmetic (through the mathematical theory of 
> self-reference, mainly due to Gödel).
>
>
>
> All these to some degree are just as good as the other in the sense that 
> there is nothing wrong with their mathematics.
>
>
> Not one equation of physics works with mechanism. It seems to work, but 
> only because it uses a brain-mind identity thesis, which does not work with 
> mechanism. To predict an eclipse with physics, you need to postulate you 
> are not reconstituted elsewhere, and this cannot work with mechanism, as 
> you are reconstituted “elsewhere” ad infinitum.
>
> Please read the more detailed explanations in my paper, or in this list.
>
>
>
>
> You put "what follows from what" of one ot those theories in a theorem 
> proving checking system and they should check out according to following 
> mathematical rules.
>
> The only way to "weed them out" is with data from observations of a 
> supposedly actual real world out there. Doesn't that suggest an "external" 
> material reality? Otherwise, why do experiments or record observations if 
> all theories are "mathematically" neutral?
>
>
> On the contrary, the self-reference are so constraining that there is only 
> one mathematical physics: the same for all universal number. It does not 
> depends on the choice of the initial phi_i (enumeration of the partial 
> computable functions, or programmable partial functions).
>
>
>
>
>
> And there are formulations of QM (like Dowker's "histories") where there 
> is no "quantum logic" involved.It can be dispensed with.
>
>
> ?
>
> For one, you might gives a reference. Dowker histories are the same as 
> Omnes and Griffith, as far as I know, and it obeys a quantum logic. The 
> many histories works both for the quantum wave, and for arithmetic, and it 
> explains why nature looks like a wave of amplitude of probabilities. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
I define "mathematical physics" (re: *there is only one mathematical 
physics*) to be any of the mathematical language entities that are "written 
down" by a human (or AI program!) that propose themselves  to be a code of 
nature.

One example is (a version of) The Standard Model equation:

  
https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
  by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilde_Marcolli

That's all mathematical physics is: The collection of all such things.

With underdetermination of (scientific) theories, another mathematical 
physics could be just as "good" as any current one.

The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may "approximate" it 
with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but unless there is some 
sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the way things will always be.

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:21:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> You forget the quote. I am not sure what is not self-reference, given that 
> I have given two definitions (third person self-reference and first person 
> self-reference, and I have explained the link between (G* proves that they 
> are equivalent, but that the machine cannot see this, making the first 
> person rather mysterious, yet necessarily so).
>

There is only 1 definition: the referring-back-at-itself that the Self does 
from its own internal first-person perspective. Everything else is just 
words-play. 

>
>
> No. It is after 30 years of work, and it has been defended as a PhD thesis 
> in mathematics/computer science in 1998.
>
> What does your number theory has to do for example with color red ?
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What does "I survive a functional digital substitution at that level." mean 
?

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:13:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to 
> me that you just make a random connection.
>
>
> I assume the indexical digital mechanist hypothesis, which assume that 
> there exists a level of description of myself such that I survive a 
> functional digital substitution at that level.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't understand anything. Where is consciousness in all that you said ?

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:04:49 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything.
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>  With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some 
>> other numbers/machines.
>>
>
> You ignore that the notion of computation is a purely arithmetical notion.
>
> Fix one universal machinery (an enumeration of all programs in some Turing 
> universal formalism, like the recursive enumeration of the program (with 
> one natural number input) of the programs written in LISP, say, or take the 
> combinator (see the recent thread on them). I note phi_i the corresponding 
> functions (computes by those programs). We can identify the natural number 
> I with the program computing ph_i, then a universal number u is a program 
> such that phi_i() = phi_x(y). U emulates x on y, and is universal, as 
> it does that for all x.  is a fixed bijection between NxN and N.
>
> The number is the code that the digitalist surgeon might temporarily put 
> on some disk, and which will be emulated by Nature when you are 
> reconstituted, like after a Digital brain transplant (which is possible, as 
> I assume Mechanism).
>
> Note that the relation phi_x(y) = z is definable in pure arithmetic. No 
> need of any assumption in physics to define the notion of digital machine. 
>
> You might need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science, 
> like the very good book by N. Cutland 
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Computability-Introduction-Recursive-Function-Theory/dp/0521294657
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Apr 2019, at 21:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/24/2019 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy between 
>> the physics extracted from arithmetic)
> 
> Which is unlikely because no physics is extracted from arithmetic.


Read the second part of the sane04 paper. 

By reversing Goldblatt’s modal quantum logic, we get three quantum logics. One 
for each mode of self-reference where some physics can be expected; Just that 
makes interesting to compare with nature, as if physics appears more in []p & p 
(p sigma_1), or less ((than []p & <>t or []p & <>t & p), that evaluate a degree 
of idealism.

This explains where physics comes from. Why it is quantum logical, and how 
consciousness can be related to the physical reality, which is just not aboard 
by physics, and inconsistent in the physicalist metaphysics, unless it abandons 
Mechanism (which it does very implicitly).

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of 
> number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing 
> nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).
> 
> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy between 
> the physics extracted from arithmetic), it is just premature to assume some 
> material world, especially for singularising some computations, which would 
> be like invoking a god, indeed.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get  "physics extracted form arithmetic”:

It shows that you are sane of mind!

It is not obvious. I suggest you read my sane04 paper, and ask me question. The 
first half (the experience in 8 steps) is the version for non mathematician, 
except at steps 8, you need to know that the computations are arithmetical 
notion.



> 
> There are dozens of so-called quantum-gravity theories that have been written 
> over the past 40 years. Including the dark matter, dark energy, cosmological 
> inflation variants, maybe dozens of dozens theories. Most on arXiv.

But that is physics. Not metaphysics. 

With mechanism, physics is emerging from the statistics on all computations, 
that entails already a version of “many-world”. When the math is done, we get 
very close to Isham-Gell-man-Hartle-Omnes-Griffith version of the 
many-histories interpretation of quantum mechanics, except that here it is 
deduce from arithmetic (through the mathematical theory of self-reference, 
mainly due to Gödel).


> 
> All these to some degree are just as good as the other in the sense that 
> there is nothing wrong with their mathematics.

Not one equation of physics works with mechanism. It seems to work, but only 
because it uses a brain-mind identity thesis, which does not work with 
mechanism. To predict an eclipse with physics, you need to postulate you are 
not reconstituted elsewhere, and this cannot work with mechanism, as you are 
reconstituted “elsewhere” ad infinitum.

Please read the more detailed explanations in my paper, or in this list.




> You put "what follows from what" of one ot those theories in a theorem 
> proving checking system and they should check out according to following 
> mathematical rules.
> 
> The only way to "weed them out" is with data from observations of a 
> supposedly actual real world out there. Doesn't that suggest an "external" 
> material reality? Otherwise, why do experiments or record observations if all 
> theories are "mathematically" neutral?

On the contrary, the self-reference are so constraining that there is only one 
mathematical physics: the same for all universal number. It does not depends on 
the choice of the initial phi_i (enumeration of the partial computable 
functions, or programmable partial functions).




> 
> And there are formulations of QM (like Dowker's "histories") where there is 
> no "quantum logic" involved.It can be dispensed with.

?

For one, you might gives a reference. Dowker histories are the same as Omnes 
and Griffith, as far as I know, and it obeys a quantum logic. The many 
histories works both for the quantum wave, and for arithmetic, and it explains 
why nature looks like a wave of amplitude of probabilities. 

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:27:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>>  recursion.
> 
> That's precisely what self-reference is not. And I specifically point this in 
> the book. 


You forget the quote. I am not sure what is not self-reference, given that I 
have given two definitions (third person self-reference and first person 
self-reference, and I have explained the link between (G* proves that they are 
equivalent, but that the machine cannot see this, making the first person 
rather mysterious, yet necessarily so).



> 
> 
> The universal machine (number, combinator, or physical) knows that they have 
> a soul (immaterial, immortal, and responsible for the illusion of the 
> physical universe and its lawfulness).
> 
>> You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with atoms. 
>> Self-reference just is.
> 
> Not OK. You can simulate the self-reference with atoms, and that enacts the 
> experience of the first person, which is distributed on the whole arithmetic, 
> and can be shown to be non formalisable, nor even definable.
> 
> It seems to me that you just say random things without any logic, probably 
> because they sound "profound" to you.


No. It is after 30 years of work, and it has been defended as a PhD thesis in 
mathematics/computer science in 1998.

It is normal to not understand if you have not study a bit of mathematical 
logic and computer science. It is based on the result of Gödel, Löb, Boolos, 
Goldblatt and mainly Solovay. We will have opportunity to come back on this, I 
guess. The subject is hot, also, and it shows that we are wrong in theology 
since 1500 years in Occident, and 800 years in the Middle-East. 

See may Plotinus paper for a transparent purely arithmetical interpretation of 
Plotinus in Arithmetic. It has hardly a coincidence, as what I say is in the 
head of every universal machine (which we are all, even if mechanism is false).

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to me 
> that you just make a random connection.

I assume the indexical digital mechanist hypothesis, which assume that there 
exists a level of description of myself such that I survive a functional 
digital substitution at that level.

That is a common assumption, and is very cheap. It is imply by all know 
physical laws, and it is used implicitly in many theories, like the theory of 
evolution. But after Gödel-Turing (and others), we know today that the very 
elementary arithmetic (even accepted by ultra-intuitionist) is Turing complete. 
That makes directly dubious the “certainty” that there is a ontological 
irreducible material universe, and even physicalism. But then the math, and the 
experience confirms it.

It is up to a believer in a material universe to explain how that universe 
selects a computation among the infinities (going through our states) which are 
realised (in a sense identical to the truth that 2+2=4).

With mechanism, we cannot assume more than very elementary arithmetic (PA 
without induction. Precisely, classical logic +

1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

(s is for the successor function). With comments:

0 ≠ s(x) (= 0 is not the successor of a number)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y (different numbers have different successors)
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))(except for 0, all numbers have a predecessor)
x+0 = x  (if you add zero to a number, you get that number)
x+s(y) = s(x+y)  (if you add a number x to the successor of a number y, you get 
the successor of x added to y)
x*0=0   (if you multiply a number by 0, you get 0)
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x(if you multiply a number x by the successor of y, you get 
the number x added to the multiplication of the number x with y)

Bruno



> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:12:03 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 19 Apr 2019, at 09:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> It's still not clear to me what your concept of "machine" is. Is it just an 
>> abstract theory or is it some actually existing entity ?
> 
> It is a machine in the sense of computer science.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything.
> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some 
> other numbers/machines.

You ignore that the notion of computation is a purely arithmetical notion.

Fix one universal machinery (an enumeration of all programs in some Turing 
universal formalism, like the recursive enumeration of the program (with one 
natural number input) of the programs written in LISP, say, or take the 
combinator (see the recent thread on them). I note phi_i the corresponding 
functions (computes by those programs). We can identify the natural number I 
with the program computing ph_i, then a universal number u is a program such 
that phi_i() = phi_x(y). U emulates x on y, and is universal, as it does 
that for all x.  is a fixed bijection between NxN and N.

The number is the code that the digitalist surgeon might temporarily put on 
some disk, and which will be emulated by Nature when you are reconstituted, 
like after a Digital brain transplant (which is possible, as I assume 
Mechanism).

Note that the relation phi_x(y) = z is definable in pure arithmetic. No need of 
any assumption in physics to define the notion of digital machine. 

You might need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science, like 
the very good book by N. Cutland 

https://www.amazon.com/Computability-Introduction-Recursive-Function-Theory/dp/0521294657
 



Bruno



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 09:52:14 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 21:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that 
> direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think 
> about the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works 
> for cases of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and 
> green emerge on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like 
> green, so where does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a 
> quale ? So it might be the case that aesthetic components might be 
> something special. That's why I would like to hear if you can come up with 
> a similar example besides aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely 
> where there might be a problem with my ideas about emergence.
>
>
> People describe colors as "warm" and "cold", and alcoholic beverages as 
> "fiery". Another thing that occurs to me are the classical elements: water, 
> air, fire, earth. Also the fact that separate cultures believed at some 
> point in similar sets of elemental substances.
>

I think these cases (also the ones with good/bad) are about consciousnesses 
unifications. Is the same with our senses: we are 1 consciousness that both 
sees and hears. Probably what is happening is that "initially" there are 2 
individual consciousnesses: one that only sees, other that only hears, and 
then they are unified into 1 consciousness. This can also be explained by 
self-reference looking-back-at-itself and including in itself 2 of its 
previous manifestations. The same unification also probably happens in 
telepathies. Personally, I don't see telepathy as message exchange, but as 
unification of consciousnesses into one, having a common experience and 
then breaking apart again. Of course, the problem remains what controls 
these unifications.

>
>
> 3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that 
> even if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention, 
> the electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems, 
> because in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher 
> consciousness.
>
>
> My counter-argument is that the laws remain exactly the same, but they 
> become impossible to apply in practice because one would have to know the 
> value of too many variables, and with too much precision. Are you familiar 
> with chaos theory?
>
> I am familiar, but I really do think that is genuine novelty involved in 
consciousness. When you have a new experience, this is not just a result of 
"rearranging atoms", but is truly something new that never existed before. 
And from that new state of consciousness you will start to impact the world 
in different ways that are not understood by consciousnesses on lower 
levels. Imagine a blind person and a seeing person taking part in a race. 
Immediately when that race starts, the seeing person will get away rapidly 
from the blind person. The blind person can wonder all day long how can the 
seeing person move his body so rapidly without bumping into stuff. The 
reason is that the seeing person is on a higher level of consciousness that 
gives him new understandings of the world and enable him to act upon the 
world in ways that are totally beyond any comprehension of consciousnesses 
on lower levels. "Laws of physics" are just statistical behaviours of 
primitive "electrons" and "protons" that all that they know is to circle 
one another. But when those primitive consciousnesses are emerged upon in 
complex systems such as the brain, the electrons will start doing other 
things, like going in the muscles in specific places as to follow the will 
of the higher consciousness.

> And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness is evolved and 
> its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to describe the 
> movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The electron will 
> simply appear to not follow any law, because the intentions of 
> consciousness would be more and more complex and diverse.
>
>
> I follow several things that you say with no problem. My biggest point of 
> disagreement is with the type of statements like the one above, these ideas 
> of an "interactive consciousness" that I find reminiscent of the interface 
> problem: if consciousness is not matter, then how does it interact with 
> matter?
>
> I am more inclined towards explanations where consciousness is the stage 
> itself, not one of the actors.
>
>
But there is no interaction with matter. I give in the book a model of how 
interactions can take place, and that is through the tree of emergence. 
Each consciousness can only act upon itself, but because all the 
consciousnesses in the world are connected through the tree of emergence 
which has the Self at the root, one act of a consciousness upon itself is 
then felt in other 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's precisely what exists: experiences.

And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, 
existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and 
thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence where you 
have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the first object 
is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red, the logical 
structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist as red". (of 
course, is more complicated, since it includes all the previous levels, so 
it is actually something like: "I am vividness, diversity, memory, time, 
black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.")

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:48:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately 
> knowable. I see red, thus red exists.
>
>
> I see red, so certainly the experience of seeing red exists. I can agree 
> with that. But it is not existence which I see, it is my own consciousness. 
>
> “Existence” has no meaning if we don’t say what exists, or it means, if 
> taken in your sense, that you define “existence” by consciousness, but that 
> is not the usual sense of existence. 
>
> What I mean, is that we say that existence is immediately knowable, people 
> will me mislead into believing that what we see exist. If I see something 
> red, “seing red” exists, but it does not mean that it exists a red thing, 
> only an experience of red can be said to exist. I might see a red unicorn, 
> for example, in some dream.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately 
> knowable. I see red, thus red exists.

I see red, so certainly the experience of seeing red exists. I can agree with 
that. But it is not existence which I see, it is my own consciousness. 

“Existence” has no meaning if we don’t say what exists, or it means, if taken 
in your sense, that you define “existence” by consciousness, but that is not 
the usual sense of existence. 

What I mean, is that we say that existence is immediately knowable, people will 
me mislead into believing that what we see exist. If I see something red, 
“seing red” exists, but it does not mean that it exists a red thing, only an 
experience of red can be said to exist. I might see a red unicorn, for example, 
in some dream.

Bruno

PS busy days, apology for possible delays in my answer. I have to go now.




> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:21:10 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>  I doubt that existence is immediately knowable, etc.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/24/2019 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy 
between the physics extracted from arithmetic)


Which is unlikely because no physics is extracted from arithmetic.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of 
> number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing 
> nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).
>
> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy 
> between the physics extracted from arithmetic), it is just premature to 
> assume some material world, especially for singularising some computations, 
> which would be like invoking a god, indeed.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
I don't get  "physics extracted form arithmetic":

There are dozens of so-called quantum-gravity theories that have been 
written over the past 40 years. Including the dark matter, dark energy, 
cosmological inflation variants, maybe dozens of dozens theories. Most on 
arXiv.

All these to some degree are just as good as the other in the sense that 
there is nothing wrong with their mathematics. You put "what follows from 
what" of one ot those theories in a theorem proving checking system and 
they should check out according to following mathematical rules.

The only way to "weed them out" is with data from observations of a 
supposedly actual real world out there. Doesn't that suggest an "external" 
material reality? Otherwise, why do experiments or record observations if 
all theories are "mathematically" neutral?

And there are formulations of QM (like Dowker's "histories") where there is 
no "quantum logic" involved.It can be dispensed with.

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 21:38, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> 
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing 
> more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience 
> reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny 
> the possibility of an objective reality. 
> 
> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic.

Agnosticism is the scientific attitude (and also the religious attitude when we 
assume mechanism).

We never claim truth, but propose theories, precise enough to be evaluated 
(usually by confrontation with the sensible things, like Nature)



> We can be sure of the primacy of consciousness - on this we agree -

We can be sure of our consciousness. I don’t see how we could be sure of its 
ontological primacy, only of its apparent epistemological primacy, which is 
different.




> but we cannot be sure about anything of the reality that pushes back on our 
> consciousness. Your certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.


Yes. Me too. 

Now, with mechanism, if you are OK with the quasi-axiomatic definition of 
consciousness that I gave, it is a theorem that all universal machine are 
conscious, and that physics is derivable from that theory, and indeed, the math 
shows that we get a quantum physics, so that nature confirms mechanism, as much 
as it refutes physicalism already. The fundamental science is the theology of 
the universal Turing machine. It is testable theory, and, still confirmed up to 
now. As I have explained, physicalism is refuted, unless we abandon mechanism. 
But to assume a material universe just to avoid Mechanism is poor motivation, 
because it substitute a testable explanation with “god made it”, or”matter made 
it”, without any further explanations.

Bruno





> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just technology, 
> then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we cannot search 
> it outside consciousness.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 06:41, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> 
> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in 
> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - 
> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the 
> dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.

Yes. Like computation exists in arithmetic, and each universal number 
determines a notion of causality, even an infinite number of such notions, up 
to some notion of responsibility and free-will.



> 
> 2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of competing 
> consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me this is 
> indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about it, no 
> hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have to 
> understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates reality.


With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of 
number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing 
nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).

Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy between the 
physics extracted from arithmetic), it is just premature to assume some 
material world, especially for singularising some computations, which would be 
like invoking a god, indeed.

Bruno



> 
> 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without causation. 
> In every instance I can think of, to influence something means to exert some 
> kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it otherwise would 
> have. It causes it to change.
> 
> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have 
> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can 
> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it 
> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie 
> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in 
> "The Quale of Time". 
> 
> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing consciousnesses, 
> and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. What evolutionary 
> dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to flap my arms and fly. 
> Why can't I?
> 
> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And they 
> are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal 
> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those consciousnesses 
> are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there is no easy way to 
> pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds. And their 
> interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a thing that we 
> call "gravity". 
> 
> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  Why 
> do people die?
> 
> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is 
> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of the 
> Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do again 
> both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the very 
> nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

There is a special kind of "recognition of patterns in prior qualia". When 
I see a color, the color automatically includes in it various sub-levels: 
shades-of-gray, black-and-white, vividness, Self, etc. But this is not 
necessarily about prior qualia. It might be on an evolutionary context, in 
the sense that at some point some beings only saw shades-of-gray, and then 
a being started to see colors. But as far as my own individual 
consciousness is concerned, I always saw colors directly.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:04:06 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> If your fundamental ontology is qualia, a kind of incorrigble knowledge, 
> then isn't everything going to epistemology?  The very idea of a mind 
> independent reality is a construct to explain the existence of patterns in 
> the qualia.  That's where the self-reference comes in: among the qualia are 
> some that are experience or recognition of patterns in prior qualia.  
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You are confusing the Self with the ego.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:50:16 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> With (panpsychic-experiential) materialism:
>
>  - the self is not eternal  :(   [ of course you could be frozen in the 
> hope for some future technology ])
>  - it is an independent consciousness (pretty much so, introducing outside 
> chemicals aside)
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:27:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  recursion.
>
>
> That's precisely what self-reference is not. And I specifically point this 
in the book. 


> The universal machine (number, combinator, or physical) knows that they 
> have a soul (immaterial, immortal, and responsible for the illusion of the 
> physical universe and its lawfulness).
>
> You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with atoms. 
> Self-reference just is.
>
>
> Not OK. You can simulate the self-reference with atoms, and that enacts 
> the experience of the first person, which is distributed on the whole 
> arithmetic, and can be shown to be non formalisable, nor even definable.
>

It seems to me that you just say random things without any logic, probably 
because they sound "profound" to you.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 1:06:59 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? 
>


Computer science has to do with consciousness only when it turns to 
experience (vs. information) processing.

https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/


- pt 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to 
me that you just make a random connection.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:12:03 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 09:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> It's still not clear to me what your concept of "machine" is. Is it just 
> an abstract theory or is it some actually existing entity ? 
>
>
> It is a machine in the sense of computer science.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some 
> other numbers/machines.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately 
knowable. I see red, thus red exists.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:21:10 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  I doubt that existence is immediately knowable, etc.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

When engaging someone like Cosmin and trying to understand where he's
coming from, I'd rather ask questions based on common understanding /
null-hypothesis first, rather than muddy the water with my own loosely held
philosophy. I'm probing to see if his ideas are consistent... I don't have
an agenda beyond that. Perhaps if I got the sense that his ideas were worth
exploring further I'd engage more of my own ideas.


On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:14 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Apr 2019, at 01:15, Terren Suydam  wrote:
>
> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without
> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means
> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it
> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>
> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing
> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence.
> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to
> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>
> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such
> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?
> Why do people die?
>
>
> With mechanism, there is no electrons in the ontology, but the existence
> of the electron is given by the lawfulness of the number’s dream. I think
> you confuse “human consciousness” with the universal machine consciousness;
> It is like, as I often say:
>
> Numbers ===> numbers dreams ===> Matter ===> human consciousness.
>
> The number (with the laws of addition and multiplication) should explain
> entirely the existence of dreams and consciousness, and the theory of
> consciousness explains entirely the phenomenology of matter, and indeed we
> rediscover the  quantum mechanics principle from this arithmetical
> phenomenology.
>
> Now it is easier to explain the quantum principle than any forces, be QED
> or gravity. That just means there is a lot of work to do on the material
> modes of self-references, which explain both the quanta and the qualia, but
> not yet the fermions and the bosons, or any hamiltonian or lagrangian.
>
> And people do not die, except in the eyes of their local neighbours. Death
> is a 3p relative thing, not an 1p reality.
>
> Many statement by Cosmic are theorem in the mechanist theory. It is sad
> that Comin is not aware that self)reference is where mathematical logic and
> theoretical computer science excels the most.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Apr 2019, at 11:48, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 11:21, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/16/2019 6:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> wrote:
 You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every Mars 
 Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, 
 its communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.
>>> 
>>> I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels is 
>>> an example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of 
>>> discussion. The entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, but 
>>> there is no "Mars Rover mind" where it also exists. The entity "Telmo" 
>>> exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an entity "Telmo" in 
>>> whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real self-reference.
>>> 
>>> Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like this 
>>> could me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, you can 
>>> define a program P like this:
>>> 
>>> program P:
>>> x = 1
>>> if x == 1:
>>> print('My variable x s holding the value 1')
>>> 
>>> The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to. It 
>>> would be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm is 
>>> x cm long. But let me show what could me meant instead by real 
>>> self-reference:
>>> 
>>> program P:
>>> if length(P) > 1000:
>>> print('I am a complicated program')
>>> else:
>>> print('I am a simple program')
>>> 
>>> Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?
>> 
>> I take your point.  But I think the difference is only one of degree.  
>> In my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology.   
>> That entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which 
>> the Rover is represented by itself. 
>> 
>> I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
>> self-reference.  It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" 
>> in trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions.  The 
>> simulation must generally include the actor at some level.  It's not 
>> some mysterious property raising up a ghost in the machine.
> 
> With self-reference comes also self-modification. The self-replicators of 
> nature that slowly adapt and complexify, the brain "rewiring itself"... 
> Things get both weird and generative. I suspect that it goes to the core 
> of what human intelligence is, and what computer intelligence is not 
> (yet). But if you say that self-reference has not magic property that 
> explains consciousness, I agree with you.
 
 
 You need some magic, but the magic of the truth of  “2+3=5” is enough. 
 
 
 
 
> 
> On consciousness I have nothing interesting to say (no jokes about ever 
> having had, please :). I think that:
> 
> consciousness = existence
 
 
 Hmm… That looks like God made it. Or like “it is”.
 
 Are you OK with the ideas that from the point of view of a conscious 
 entity, consciousness is something:
 
 Immediately knowable, and indubitable, (in case the machine can reason)
 Non definable, and non provable to any other machine.
>>> 
>>> I agree. Would this not also apply to the concept of "existance”?
>> 
>> I am not sure what you mean by “existence” when used alone. It might be a 
>> “professional deformation”, but to me existence is a logical quantifier, and 
>> is not a intrinsic property.
> 
> Ok, I see. I'm not sure if the existential qualifier in predicate logic, for 
> example, points to the same thing I mean.

Probably not, but that is why you should explain a bit more what you mean by 
existence. I think you mean the feeling of personal existence, which is indeed 
a not to bad definition of consciousness, but not really an explanation, 
because a “feeling” is an as hard a notion than “consciousness”.




> 
>> 
>> I think that may be consciousness is a fixed point of existence, in the 
>> sense that “existence of consciousness” is equivalent with “consciousness”.
>> 
>> If you are using “existence” is a more sophisticated sense, then this should 
>> be elaborated?
> 
> I'm trying to use it in the least sophisticated way possible.


I might be defend 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Apr 2019, at 01:15, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> 
> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without causation. 
> In every instance I can think of, to influence something means to exert some 
> kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it otherwise would 
> have. It causes it to change.
> 
> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing consciousnesses, 
> and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. What evolutionary 
> dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to flap my arms and fly. 
> Why can't I?
> 
> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  Why 
> do people die?

With mechanism, there is no electrons in the ontology, but the existence of the 
electron is given by the lawfulness of the number’s dream. I think you confuse 
“human consciousness” with the universal machine consciousness; It is like, as 
I often say:

Numbers ===> numbers dreams ===> Matter ===> human consciousness.

The number (with the laws of addition and multiplication) should explain 
entirely the existence of dreams and consciousness, and the theory of 
consciousness explains entirely the phenomenology of matter, and indeed we 
rediscover the  quantum mechanics principle from this arithmetical 
phenomenology.

Now it is easier to explain the quantum principle than any forces, be QED or 
gravity. That just means there is a lot of work to do on the material modes of 
self-references, which explain both the quanta and the qualia, but not yet the 
fermions and the bosons, or any hamiltonian or lagrangian. 

And people do not die, except in the eyes of their local neighbours. Death is a 
3p relative thing, not an 1p reality.

Many statement by Cosmic are theorem in the mechanist theory. It is sad that 
Comin is not aware that self)reference is where mathematical logic and 
theoretical computer science excels the most.

Bruno




> 
> Terren
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:19 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory answers 
> to them, here's how I view the issues raised:
> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
> Hey Cosmin, 
> 
> What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on and 
> influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that causal 
> link manifest?
> 
> Notice that I specifically use the word "influence" and not "causation". This 
> is because I believe there is no causation. Let's not talk about electrons, 
> because electrons don't exist, they are just ideas in consciousness. Let's 
> just talk about qualia. The idea is that when I see an image for example, I 
> just see it. But that image comes with a whole emergent structure built into 
> it: objects, shapes, colors, shades-of-gray, black-and-white. So in a way 
> there is a top-down influence in levels from the level of the image to all 
> its constituent levels. But it is not causation, because colors don't cause 
> shades-of-gray, but influence them such as to conform with the highest level. 
> Take the colored cube image:
> 
>  
> 
> The reason the squares are yellow and blue is because there is a top-down 
> influence in levels from the level of the full visual scene to the level of 
> colors. But there is no causation. Is just influence, and the influence is in 
> the direction of the parts to contribute to the whole in a meaningful way. 
> 
> The same must happen when we move our body. Whatever is behind the 
> appearances of "electrons", it acts as parts and take part in the greater 
> holistic meaning of moving the body. But again, is not causation, is parts 
> contributing to the whole in a meaningful way.
> 
> You can read the full account that I'm giving to how influence works, in the 
> section "The idealist ontology" on Part II of my The Emergent Structure of 
> Consciousness paper. (or in the book)
> 
>  
> Some other questions: 
> 
> Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the 
> seemingly inevitably slide into solipsism? Why does our world seem 
> constrained? 
> 
> Is not solipsism because I think it is a good assumption to allow the 
> existence of other consciousnesses in the world. The world seem constrained 
> because of the interactions between consciousnesses, each consciousness 
> wanting to be in power, and you get an evolutionary game in which all 
> consciousnesses adapt to all the other consciousnesses.
> 
>  
> Put another way, what is the principle that makes sense of your account of 
> consciousness such that it can influence some things, but not others?
> 
> 
> I think this is because of evolution. 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 7:42:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 4:01 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
>>> whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
>>> agree about or argue about anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>>
>>> What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise 
>>> (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) 
>>> are *theories of reality*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, 
>>> they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the theory 
>>> makes accurate and reliable predictions.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> “All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave 
>>> wall.”
>>>--- Sean Carroll
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.
>>
>>
>> Have you read the parable of the cave??
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> It's the very definition of Platonism: Platonic Forms.
>
>
> [Wikipedia: The Allegory of the Cave]
>
> The allegory is probably related to Plato's theory of *Forms*, according 
> to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world known to us 
> through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of 
> reality. Only knowledge of the *Forms* constitutes real knowledge or what 
> Socrates considers "the good".
>
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
>
> Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, 
> etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of* 
> Forms*.
>
> The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.
>
> In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the *Theory of Forms* 
> to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can 
> see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire.  Between the fire 
> and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The 
> puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows 
> on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the 
> real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are 
> shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.
>
>
> OK.  You read it.  Maybe you didn't read the quote of Carroll, in which he 
> plainly says the "prisoners" whos pay attention to what they see and make 
> inferences from their observations are the ones that advance 
> knowledge...not the mystics like Plato to who think mere introspection is 
> superior.
>
> Vic would have agreed completely with Carroll on that point.  He called 
> Carroll a Platonist once because Carroll considered quantum fields more 
> fundamental than particles.  I don't think fields vs particles has much to 
> do with Platonism and at other times Vic seemed to agree one was a good as 
> the other.  I (and I think Bob and LC) consider fields more fundamental 
> because particles come and go depending on acceleration and the existence 
> of horizons.
>
> Brent
>


The basic Vic "Platonism" complaint is in terms of taking a theory's 
mathematical formulation (like the wave function, etc.) and saying that the 
mathematical entities of the formulation are physically real.

- 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/

Vic differed of course from Sean on Many-Worlds, so there was that as well.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/
 
:

I have often talked about the *Many-Worlds* or Everett approach to quantum 
mechanics — here’s an explanatory video, an excerpt from From Eternity to 
Here, and slides from a talk. But I don’t think I’ve ever explained as 
persuasively as possible why I think it’s the right approach. So that’s 
what I’m going to try to do here. Although to be honest right off the bat, 
I’m actually going to tackle a slightly easier problem: explaining why the 
many-worlds approach is not completely insane, and indeed *quite natural*. 
The harder part is explaining why it actually works, which I’ll get to in 
another post.



Whether Worlds or Histories are more "natural" is certainly up for debate, 
as Fay Dowker does in debates with her Many-Worlds opponents.

- pt 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 21:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that 
> direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think about 
> the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works for cases 
> of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and green emerge 
> on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like green, so where 
> does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a quale ? So it might 
> be the case that aesthetic components might be something special. That's why 
> I would like to hear if you can come up with a similar example besides 
> aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely where there might be a 
> problem with my ideas about emergence.

People describe colors as "warm" and "cold", and alcoholic beverages as 
"fiery". Another thing that occurs to me are the classical elements: water, 
air, fire, earth. Also the fact that separate cultures believed at some point 
in similar sets of elemental substances.

> 
> 2) This is interesting again. And I thought about it before writing my paper 
> about emergence. And indeed I think that your proposal that it might just be 
> something related to brain functioning cannot be discarded. The reason why I 
> prefer to see it as something related directly to consciousness is simply 
> because it can give me the possibility to further pursue the issue. If it is 
> something related to brain, then it might be contingent, and I cannot see how 
> the phenomenon can be understood any further. If it is something related to 
> consciousness, then it is interesting because then it is related to 
> fundamental problems regarding the nature of meaning and how meaning is 
> generated, so deep thinking in these directions can further help us 
> understand consciousness.

To be fair, I am playing devil's advocate here. I like mantra meditation, so 
obviously I find something more profound in this dissolution of meaning than 
simply a brain quirk. My hunch on this is a bit boring: that it is both things 
at the same time.

> 
> 3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that even 
> if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention, the 
> electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems, because 
> in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher consciousness.

My counter-argument is that the laws remain exactly the same, but they become 
impossible to apply in practice because one would have to know the value of too 
many variables, and with too much precision. Are you familiar with chaos theory?

>  And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness is evolved and 
> its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to describe the 
> movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The electron will simply 
> appear to not follow any law, because the intentions of consciousness would 
> be more and more complex and diverse.

I follow several things that you say with no problem. My biggest point of 
disagreement is with the type of statements like the one above, these ideas of 
an "interactive consciousness" that I find reminiscent of the interface 
problem: if consciousness is not matter, then how does it interact with matter?

I am more inclined towards explanations where consciousness is the stage 
itself, not one of the actors.

> 
> Btw, you can find my ideas also published for free in papers: 
> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan So if you want to get more 
> details about my ideas regarding emergence and self-reference, you can as 
> well read the papers.

Thanks! I will try to read your book, my problem is lack of time...

Telmo.

> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:09:54 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>> 
>> 1)
>> 
>> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you 
>> say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as 
>> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without 
>> implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a 
>> piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that 
>> the first two have something in common that distinguishes them from the 
>> third, and you can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could 
>> say that the chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the 
>> spoonful of sugar not so much. You can also label this abstraction with some 
>> word. Without empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more 
>> meaningful than another.
>> 
>> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know about 
>> sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) basic 
>> flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into the pure 
>> qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical relation and 
>> 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 4:01 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real.
It is there whether there are any of us (or anyone else)
thinking beings around to agree about or argue about anything.


Really?



What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or
otherwise (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what
agreement there really is) are *theories of reality*.


Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of
reality, they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a
domain in which the theory makes accurate and reliable
predictions.

Brent
“All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on
the cave wall.”
   --- Sean Carroll



Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.


Have you read the parable of the cave??

Brent




It's the very definition of Platonism: Platonic Forms.


[Wikipedia: The Allegory of the Cave]

The allegory is probably related to Plato's theory of *Forms*, 
according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material 
world known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most 
fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the *Forms* constitutes 
real knowledge or what Socrates considers "the good".



https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, 
etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm 
of*Forms*.


The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the *Theory of 
Forms* to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All 
they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. 
Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which 
puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, 
hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The 
prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass 
behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes 
cast by objects that they do not see.


OK.  You read it.  Maybe you didn't read the quote of Carroll, in which 
he plainly says the "prisoners" whos pay attention to what they see and 
make inferences from their observations are the ones that advance 
knowledge...not the mystics like Plato to who think mere introspection 
is superior.


Vic would have agreed completely with Carroll on that point.  He called 
Carroll a Platonist once because Carroll considered quantum fields more 
fundamental than particles.  I don't think fields vs particles has much 
to do with Platonism and at other times Vic seemed to agree one was a 
good as the other.  I (and I think Bob and LC) consider fields more 
fundamental because particles come and go depending on acceleration and 
the existence of horizons.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
>> whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
>> agree about or argue about anything.
>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>> What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise 
>> (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) 
>> are *theories of reality*.
>>
>>
>> Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, they 
>> are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the theory makes 
>> accurate and reliable predictions.
>>
>> Brent
>> “All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave 
>> wall.”
>>--- Sean Carroll
>>
>
>
> Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.
>
>
> Have you read the parable of the cave??
>
> Brent
>



It's the very definition of Platonism: Platonic Forms.


[Wikipedia: The Allegory of the Cave]

The allegory is probably related to Plato's theory of *Forms*, according to 
which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world known to us 
through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of 
reality. Only knowledge of the *Forms* constitutes real knowledge or what 
Socrates considers "the good".


https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, 
etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of* 
Forms*.

The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the *Theory of Forms* to 
prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see 
is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire.  Between the fire and 
the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The 
puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows 
on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the 
real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are 
shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. 

- pt 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is
there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking
beings around to agree about or argue about anything.


Really?



What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or
otherwise (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what
agreement there really is) are *theories of reality*.


Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of
reality, they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in
which the theory makes accurate and reliable predictions.

Brent
“All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the
cave wall.”
   --- Sean Carroll



Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.


Have you read the parable of the cave??

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
> whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
> agree about or argue about anything.
>
>
> Really?
>
>
> What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise (and 
> it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) are 
> *theories 
> of reality*.
>
>
> Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, they 
> are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the theory makes 
> accurate and reliable predictions.
>
> Brent
> “All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave 
> wall.”
>--- Sean Carroll
>


Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.

- pt

 

>
>
> And theories of reality are just that.
>
> BTW: Today is Kant's birthday [b. 22 April 1724 - 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ].
>
> - pt 
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a 
>> consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the basis 
>> for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a common 
>> world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are epistemologically 
>> fundamental.  Whether they are ontologically fundamental depends on what 
>> theory proves always accurate in prediction and broad in scope.  
>> Hypothesizing other consciousnesses is not different in principle from 
>> hyposthesizing tables and quarks.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
>> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
>> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
>> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality.  
>>
>> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
>> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
>> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
>> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we 
>>> can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
>>> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
>>> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>>> -- 
>>>
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is 
there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings 
around to agree about or argue about anything.


Really?



What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise 
(and it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really 
is) are *theories of reality*.


Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, 
they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the 
theory makes accurate and reliable predictions.


Brent
“All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave wall.”
   --- Sean Carroll



And theories of reality are just that.

BTW: Today is Kant's birthday [b. 22 April 1724 - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ].


- pt


On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There
is a consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that
becomes the basis for hypothesizing there is person and mind
independent reality, a common world.  Conscious thought, like
percpetions, are epistemologically fundamental.  Whether they are
ontologically fundamental depends on what theory proves always
accurate in prediction and broad in scope.  Hypothesizing other
consciousnesses is not different in principle from hyposthesizing
tables and quarks.

Brent

On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:

Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may
entail nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may
never be able to experience reality directly, or know its true
form, but that doesn't force us to deny the possibility of an
objective reality.

If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure
of the primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we
cannot be sure about anything of the reality that pushes back on
our consciousness. Your certainty on this matter is a red flag
for me.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything
List > wrote:

We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact
that we can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure,
if we want just technology, then all kinds of science can do
it. But if we want truth, we cannot search it outside
consciousness.
-- 



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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
agree about or argue about anything.

What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise (and 
it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) are 
*theories 
of reality*.

And theories of reality are just that.

BTW: Today is Kant's birthday [b. 22 April 1724 - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ].

- pt


On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a 
> consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the basis 
> for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a common 
> world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are epistemologically 
> fundamental.  Whether they are ontologically fundamental depends on what 
> theory proves always accurate in prediction and broad in scope.  
> Hypothesizing other consciousnesses is not different in principle from 
> hyposthesizing tables and quarks.
>
> Brent
>
> On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality.  
>
> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
>> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
>> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
>> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>> -- 
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a 
consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the 
basis for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a 
common world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are 
epistemologically fundamental.  Whether they are ontologically 
fundamental depends on what theory proves always accurate in prediction 
and broad in scope.  Hypothesizing other consciousnesses is not 
different in principle from hyposthesizing tables and quarks.


Brent

On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't 
force us to deny the possibility of an objective reality.


If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure 
about anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. 
Your certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.


On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> wrote:


We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that
we can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want
just technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we
want truth, we cannot search it outside consciousness.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

And there are other reasons as well. The nature of self-reference is of 
such a kind that the very meaning of the word "existence" is "the 
looking-back-at-itself of self-reference", so existence can only be 
subjective.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

For every "Reality is X" statement, where X doesn't refer to an experience 
in consciousness, that statement is just a thought in consciousness, so it 
cannot be anything more than a fabricated theory.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:38:20 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality. 
>
> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing
more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience
reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny
the possibility of an objective reality.

If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the
primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about
anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your
certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can
> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just
> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we
> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:21:50 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>

Matter is like Certs [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certs ] ("two mints in 
one"):
physical + psychical.

I think that is operationally better.

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Are you aware of Donald Hoffman's work ? He too starts from interacting 
conscious agents and from there we deduces quantum mechanics. I don't agree 
with his theory, because he is not aware of the emergent nature of 
consciousness, but it's an interesting exercise of how physics can be 
derived from consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oadgHhdgRkI

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
cannot search it outside consciousness.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

My feedback for you, if you care for it, is to find a way to disprove your
ideas in principle. What fact, if uncovered, what clearly show your ideas
to be false?  What counter-intuitive prediction could be used to test them?

Without that, all you appear to have is a set of ideas, a little too close
to solipsism, in which explanations for anything can be generated in terms
of mysterious forms of consciousness.

Terren

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> You can still continue to make science as you are doing it today, in order
> to increase the quality of life. The thing is that you never had causality,
> determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe to
> start with. What we gain is precisely this: the ability to understand
> existence. You can still make predicitons, but they will be prediciton of
> the kind: "If you put your hand into the fire, you will get burned. Don't
> you believe me ? Try it!", namely predictions by way of experience. First
> someone experiences something (without prediction what it will be, because
> you cannot predict something that you never experienced), and then by
> understanding the context that generated that specific meaning, you will
> invite other consciousness to put themselves into that precise context. God
> himself created the world in order to experience things. He couldn't have
> imagined by his own will new qualia, because he didn't have the proper
> contexts for those qualia to be brought into existence. So he forgot about
> himself and reincarnated in all the consciousness in the world, and those
> consciousness through their interactions establish contexts and contexts
> give birth to meaning/qualia. This way, God gets to know himself. Is the
> only way.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 15:48:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> So to summarize:
>>
>>- We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of
>>understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing
>>consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
>>- We gain:
>>
>> Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your
>> theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff?
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You can still continue to make science as you are doing it today, in order 
to increase the quality of life. The thing is that you never had causality, 
determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe to 
start with. What we gain is precisely this: the ability to understand 
existence. You can still make predicitons, but they will be prediciton of 
the kind: "If you put your hand into the fire, you will get burned. Don't 
you believe me ? Try it!", namely predictions by way of experience. First 
someone experiences something (without prediction what it will be, because 
you cannot predict something that you never experienced), and then by 
understanding the context that generated that specific meaning, you will 
invite other consciousness to put themselves into that precise context. God 
himself created the world in order to experience things. He couldn't have 
imagined by his own will new qualia, because he didn't have the proper 
contexts for those qualia to be brought into existence. So he forgot about 
himself and reincarnated in all the consciousness in the world, and those 
consciousness through their interactions establish contexts and contexts 
give birth to meaning/qualia. This way, God gets to know himself. Is the 
only way.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 15:48:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> So to summarize:
>
>- We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of 
>understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing 
>consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
>- We gain: 
>
> Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your 
> theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff? 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

So to summarize:

   - We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of
   understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing
   consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
   - We gain:

Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your
theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff?

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:46 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in
>> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once -
>> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the
>> dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.
>>
>> No, it cannot. It is just the story of the movie. I guess that in dreams
> when a rock falls and hits the ground, you don't consider that the rock
> fell because it was causally attracted by the earth. It is just the story
> of the dream.
>
>
>> 2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of
>> competing consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me
>> this is indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about
>> it, no hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have
>> to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates
>> reality.
>>
>
> Yes, you cannot make predictions anymore, because it all depends on the
> thinking of each individual consciousness. Is like in society. You can only
> make vague general predictions, but you will never have exact predictions
> like in physics, because you are dealing with complex consciousnesses. The
> predictions in physics are more precise because you are dealing there with
> primitive consciousnesses and they act in simple manners.
>
>>
>> 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?
>>
>> They don't want you to die. What happens is that interaction is disrupted
> at some point, and your highly evolved consciousness falls apart. Is also
> similar to how society works. When the component consciousnesses don't
> interact anymore in the proper ways, society falls apart.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:

 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without
 causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means
 to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it
 otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.

>>>
>>> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have
>>> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can
>>> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it
>>> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie
>>> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in
>>> "The Quale of Time".
>>>

 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing
 consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence.
 What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to
 flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?

>>>
>>> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And
>>> they are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal
>>> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those
>>> consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there
>>> is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds.
>>> And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a
>>> thing that we call "gravity".
>>>

 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no
 such things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate
 constraint?  Why do people die?

 In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is
>>> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of
>>> the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do
>>> again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the
>>> very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in 
> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - 
> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the 
> dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.
>
> No, it cannot. It is just the story of the movie. I guess that in dreams 
when a rock falls and hits the ground, you don't consider that the rock 
fell because it was causally attracted by the earth. It is just the story 
of the dream.
 

> 2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of 
> competing consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me 
> this is indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about 
> it, no hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have 
> to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates 
> reality.
>

Yes, you cannot make predictions anymore, because it all depends on the 
thinking of each individual consciousness. Is like in society. You can only 
make vague general predictions, but you will never have exact predictions 
like in physics, because you are dealing with complex consciousnesses. The 
predictions in physics are more precise because you are dealing there with 
primitive consciousnesses and they act in simple manners. 

>
> 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?
>
> They don't want you to die. What happens is that interaction is disrupted 
at some point, and your highly evolved consciousness falls apart. Is also 
similar to how society works. When the component consciousnesses don't 
interact anymore in the proper ways, society falls apart. 

>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without 
>>> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means 
>>> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it 
>>> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>>>
>>
>> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have 
>> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can 
>> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it 
>> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie 
>> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in 
>> "The Quale of Time". 
>>
>>>
>>> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing 
>>> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. 
>>> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to 
>>> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>>>
>>
>> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And 
>> they are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal 
>> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those 
>> consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there 
>> is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds. 
>> And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a 
>> thing that we call "gravity". 
>>
>>>
>>> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
>>> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  
>>> Why do people die?
>>>
>>> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is 
>> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of 
>> the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do 
>> again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the 
>> very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in
block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once -
but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the
dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.

2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of
competing consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me
this is indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about
it, no hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have
to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates
reality.

3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?


On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without
>> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means
>> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it
>> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>>
>
> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have
> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can
> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it
> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie
> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in
> "The Quale of Time".
>
>>
>> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing
>> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence.
>> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to
>> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>>
>
> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And they
> are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal
> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those
> consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there
> is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds.
> And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a
> thing that we call "gravity".
>
>>
>> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such
>> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?
>> Why do people die?
>>
>> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is
> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of
> the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do
> again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the
> very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Apr 2019, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia of 
>> colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You 
>> cannot see a color if that color is not emergent upon black-and-white (or 
>> more specifically shades-of-gray). You cannot experience music if music is 
>> not emergent upon sounds. You cannot taste chocolate if chocolate is not 
>> emergent upon sweet. You cannot understand Pythagoras Theorem if the 
>> understanding of Pythagoras Theorem doesn't emerge upon the understandings 
>> of triangles, angles, lengths, etc. And this is real emergence, because you 
>> really get new existent entities that never existed before in the history of 
>> existence. God himself never experienced these qualia. 
> 
> Ok, I think I understand your presentation better now. You make an 
> interesting point, I don't think I ever considered emergence purely on the 
> side of qualia as you describe.
> 
> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you say 
> that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as 
> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without implicitly 
> alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a piece of 
> chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that the first 
> two have something in common that distinguishes them from the third, and you 
> can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could say that the 
> chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the spoonful of sugar 
> not so much. You can also label this abstraction with some word. Without 
> empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more meaningful than 
> another.

Do you really mean “without empirical grounding”, or “without experiential 
grounding”.

The “empirical grounding” seems to me still too much “quanti”. 



> 
> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know about 
> sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) basic 
> flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into the pure 
> qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical relation and 
> emergence becomes nonsensical again. There's just a field of qualia.

OK.


> 
>> 
>> I don't understand your second part of the question regarding our "cognitive 
>> processes". Are you referring to our specific form of human consciousness ? 
>> I don't think this is only restricted to our human consciousness, for the 
>> reason that it happens to all qualia that we have. All qualia domains are 
>> structured in an emergent way.
> 
> I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by repetition, 
> like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I to find this 
> interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For example, that our 
> brain requires a certain amount of variety in its inputs, otherwise it tends 
> to a simpler state were apprehension of meaning is no longer possible. In 
> other words, I am proposing a plumber-style explanation, and asking you 
> why/if you think it can be discarded?
> 
>> 
>> 2) The main ideas in my book are the emergent structure of consciousness and 
>> the self-reference which gives birth to the emergent structure. The ideas 
>> about self-reference that I have are rooted in phenomenology. First I 
>> observe that consciousness is structured in an emergent way, and then I 
>> conclude that the reason it is like this is because there is an entity 
>> called "self-reference" that looks-back-at-itself and in this process 
>> includes the previously existing self and brings a new transcendent self 
>> into existence, like in the case of colors emerging on top of 
>> black-and-white.
> 
> I have the problem above with the first part of what you say, but I like the 
> second part.

Using the theory of machine self-reference (which is really the base of the 
whole of theoretical computer science or recursion theory), we have a try pique 
of “self”:

G (third person self-reference which are rationally justifiable modulo the bet 
on the substitution level)
It is close for Necessitation, and admit the Löb’s axiom (as a theorem)

G* (third person self-reference, rationally justifiable or not. Incompleteness 
assures that G is properly included in G*). It NOT closed for necessitation, 
but admit the Löb axiom (again as a (meta-theorem) about the sound machines).

S4Grz (first person self-reference, non definable by the machine, and typically 
on the qualia side: indubitable but no exprimable immediate knowledge (well: 
immediate only in its []p & <>t & p form, to be sure).

Cosmic is unclear on the []p distinction with []p & p, with third person self, 
and the first person self, the doxastic belief and the epistemological (and non 
communicable) 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 11:21, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
 
 
 
 On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/16/2019 6:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>>> You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric. Every Mars 
>>> Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, 
>>> its communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.
>> 
>> I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels is 
>> an example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of 
>> discussion. The entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, but 
>> there is no "Mars Rover mind" where it also exists. The entity "Telmo" 
>> exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an entity "Telmo" in 
>> whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real self-reference.
>> 
>> Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like this 
>> could me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, you can 
>> define a program P like this:
>> 
>> program P:
>>  x = 1
>>  if x == 1:
>>  print('My variable x s holding the value 1')
>> 
>> The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to. It 
>> would be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm is x 
>> cm long. But let me show what could me meant instead by real 
>> self-reference:
>> 
>> program P:
>>  if length(P) > 1000:
>>  print('I am a complicated program')
>>  else:
>>  print('I am a simple program')
>> 
>> Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?
> 
> I take your point. But I think the difference is only one of degree. In 
> my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology. That 
> entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the 
> Rover is represented by itself. 
> 
> I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
> self-reference. It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in 
> trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions. The simulation 
> must generally include the actor at some level. It's not some mysterious 
> property raising up a ghost in the machine.
 
 With self-reference comes also self-modification. The self-replicators of 
 nature that slowly adapt and complexify, the brain "rewiring itself"... 
 Things get both weird and generative. I suspect that it goes to the core 
 of what human intelligence is, and what computer intelligence is not 
 (yet). But if you say that self-reference has not magic property that 
 explains consciousness, I agree with you.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You need some magic, but the magic of the truth of “2+3=5” is enough. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 On consciousness I have nothing interesting to say (no jokes about ever 
 having had, please :). I think that:
 
 consciousness = existence
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hmm… That looks like God made it. Or like “it is”.
>>> 
>>> Are you OK with the ideas that from the point of view of a conscious 
>>> entity, consciousness is something:
>>> 
>>> Immediately knowable, and indubitable, (in case the machine can reason)
>>> Non definable, and non provable to any other machine.
>> 
>> I agree. Would this not also apply to the concept of "existance”?
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by “existence” when used alone. It might be a 
> “professional deformation”, but to me existence is a logical quantifier, and 
> is not a intrinsic property.

Ok, I see. I'm not sure if the existential qualifier in predicate logic, for 
example, points to the same thing I mean.

> 
> I think that may be consciousness is a fixed point of existence, in the sense 
> that “existence of consciousness” is equivalent with “consciousness”.
> 
> If you are using “existence” is a more sophisticated sense, then this should 
> be elaborated?

I'm trying to use it in the least sophisticated way possible.

> 
> We cannot prove the existence of anything, without assuming the existence of 
> something. With mechanism, we have to assume the existence of numbers (or to 
> derive from something Turing equivalent, like I did with the combinators), so 
> I doubt that existence is immediately knowable, etc. Unless again, you meant 
> “existence of consciousness”, but then this cannot apply to define 
> consciousness.
> 
> You might need to elaborate about what you mean by “existence”, when used 
> alone.

I mean there being something rather than nothing, the universe, or multiverse, 
or whatever the whole cow is.

> 
> 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without 
> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means 
> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it 
> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>

The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have 
temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can 
see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it 
appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie 
exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in 
"The Quale of Time". 

>
> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing 
> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. 
> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to 
> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>

Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And they 
are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal 
interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those 
consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there 
is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds. 
And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a 
thing that we call "gravity". 

>
> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  
> Why do people die?
>
> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is 
eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of 
the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do 
again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the 
very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

How can it produce the "right answer" if you don't tell it specifically what 
the "right answer" should be ? Only because you make a computer display on the 
screen "***This is the right answer!***" it doesn't mean you replicated the 
workings of consciousness. It only means you made the computer to do what you 
want it. You can also make it display "I am Santa Claus.". So what ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

I didn't say "see" I said identify, as it produce the right answer.

Brent

On 4/19/2019 11:01 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
You didn't read anything from what I wrote to you about meaning, 
purpose, free will, intelligence, learning, memory, etc, have you ? 
Because otherwise, you would have understood that AIs don't see any 
colors. And there is no brain.


On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:25:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


Of course if you built an AI to identify the color of objects the
full visual scene would have exactly the same "influence", except
you would be able to trace it back to a normalization of the
colors in the AI...an entirely causal process, and one that no
doubt happens in the brain.

Brent

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You didn't read anything from what I wrote to you about meaning, purpose, 
free will, intelligence, learning, memory, etc, have you ? Because 
otherwise, you would have understood that AIs don't see any colors. And 
there is no brain.

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:25:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Of course if you built an AI to identify the color of objects the full 
> visual scene would have exactly the same "influence", except you would be 
> able to trace it back to a normalization of the colors in the AI...an 
> entirely causal process, and one that no doubt happens in the brain.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/19/2019 2:19 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory 
answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised:


On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hey Cosmin,

What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down
manner on and influences electrons and presumably other particles?
How does that causal link manifest?

Notice that I specifically use the word "influence" and not 
"causation". This is because I believe there is no causation. Let's 
not talk about electrons, because electrons don't exist, they are just 
ideas in consciousness. Let's just talk about qualia. The idea is that 
when I see an image for example, I just see it. But that image comes 
with a whole emergent structure built into it: objects, shapes, 
colors, shades-of-gray, black-and-white. So in a way there is a 
top-down influence in levels from the level of the image to all its 
constituent levels. But it is not causation, because colors don't 
cause shades-of-gray, but influence them such as to conform with the 
highest level. Take the colored cube image:





The reason the squares are yellow and blue is because there is a 
top-down influence in levels from the level of the full visual scene 
to the level of colors. But there is no causation. Is just influence, 
and the influence is in the direction of the parts to contribute to 
the whole in a meaningful way.


Of course if you built an AI to identify the color of objects the full 
visual scene would have exactly the same "influence", except you would 
be able to trace it back to a normalization of the colors in the AI...an 
entirely causal process, and one that no doubt happens in the brain.


Brent



The same must happen when we move our body. Whatever is behind the 
appearances of "electrons", it acts as parts and take part in the 
greater holistic meaning of moving the body. But again, is not 
causation, is parts contributing to the whole in a meaningful way.


You can read the full account that I'm giving to how influence works, 
in the section "The idealist ontology" on Part II of my The Emergent 
Structure of Consciousness paper. (or in the book)


Some other questions:

Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what
stops the seemingly inevitably slide into solipsism? Why does our
world seem constrained?

Is not solipsism because I think it is a good assumption to allow the 
existence of other consciousnesses in the world. The world seem 
constrained because of the interactions between consciousnesses, each 
consciousness wanting to be in power, and you get an evolutionary game 
in which all consciousnesses adapt to all the other consciousnesses.


Put another way, what is the principle that makes sense of your
account of consciousness such that it can influence some things,
but not others?


I think this is because of evolution. Certain connections were 
established between certain consciousnesses in order to help them 
survive. It's similar to why we have the qualia that we have and not 
others: because they helped us at some point in our evolutionary history.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without causation.
In every instance I can think of, to influence something means to exert
some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it otherwise
would have. It *causes* it to change.

2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing
consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence.
What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to
flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?

3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such
things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?
Why do people die?

Terren

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:19 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory
> answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised:
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Hey Cosmin,
>>
>> What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on
>> and influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that
>> causal link manifest?
>>
>> Notice that I specifically use the word "influence" and not "causation".
> This is because I believe there is no causation. Let's not talk about
> electrons, because electrons don't exist, they are just ideas in
> consciousness. Let's just talk about qualia. The idea is that when I see an
> image for example, I just see it. But that image comes with a whole
> emergent structure built into it: objects, shapes, colors, shades-of-gray,
> black-and-white. So in a way there is a top-down influence in levels from
> the level of the image to all its constituent levels. But it is not
> causation, because colors don't cause shades-of-gray, but influence them
> such as to conform with the highest level. Take the colored cube image:
>
>
> 
>
> The reason the squares are yellow and blue is because there is a top-down
> influence in levels from the level of the full visual scene to the level of
> colors. But there is no causation. Is just influence, and the influence is
> in the direction of the parts to contribute to the whole in a meaningful
> way.
>
> The same must happen when we move our body. Whatever is behind the
> appearances of "electrons", it acts as parts and take part in the greater
> holistic meaning of moving the body. But again, is not causation, is parts
> contributing to the whole in a meaningful way.
>
> You can read the full account that I'm giving to how influence works, in
> the section "The idealist ontology" on Part II of my The Emergent Structure
> of Consciousness paper. (or in the book)
>
>
>
>> Some other questions:
>>
>> Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the
>> seemingly inevitably slide into solipsism? Why does our world seem
>> constrained?
>>
>> Is not solipsism because I think it is a good assumption to allow the
> existence of other consciousnesses in the world. The world seem constrained
> because of the interactions between consciousnesses, each consciousness
> wanting to be in power, and you get an evolutionary game in which all
> consciousnesses adapt to all the other consciousnesses.
>
>
>
>> Put another way, what is the principle that makes sense of your account
>> of consciousness such that it can influence some things, but not others?
>>
>>
> I think this is because of evolution. Certain connections were established
> between certain consciousnesses in order to help them survive. It's similar
> to why we have the qualia that we have and not others: because they helped
> us at some point in our evolutionary history.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory 
answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised:

On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hey Cosmin, 
>
> What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on 
> and influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that 
> causal link manifest?
>
> Notice that I specifically use the word "influence" and not "causation". 
This is because I believe there is no causation. Let's not talk about 
electrons, because electrons don't exist, they are just ideas in 
consciousness. Let's just talk about qualia. The idea is that when I see an 
image for example, I just see it. But that image comes with a whole 
emergent structure built into it: objects, shapes, colors, shades-of-gray, 
black-and-white. So in a way there is a top-down influence in levels from 
the level of the image to all its constituent levels. But it is not 
causation, because colors don't cause shades-of-gray, but influence them 
such as to conform with the highest level. Take the colored cube image:



The reason the squares are yellow and blue is because there is a top-down 
influence in levels from the level of the full visual scene to the level of 
colors. But there is no causation. Is just influence, and the influence is 
in the direction of the parts to contribute to the whole in a meaningful 
way. 

The same must happen when we move our body. Whatever is behind the 
appearances of "electrons", it acts as parts and take part in the greater 
holistic meaning of moving the body. But again, is not causation, is parts 
contributing to the whole in a meaningful way.

You can read the full account that I'm giving to how influence works, in 
the section "The idealist ontology" on Part II of my The Emergent Structure 
of Consciousness paper. (or in the book)

 

> Some other questions: 
>
> Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the 
> seemingly inevitably slide into solipsism? Why does our world seem 
> constrained? 
>
> Is not solipsism because I think it is a good assumption to allow the 
existence of other consciousnesses in the world. The world seem constrained 
because of the interactions between consciousnesses, each consciousness 
wanting to be in power, and you get an evolutionary game in which all 
consciousnesses adapt to all the other consciousnesses.

 

> Put another way, what is the principle that makes sense of your account of 
> consciousness such that it can influence some things, but not others?
>
>
I think this is because of evolution. Certain connections were established 
between certain consciousnesses in order to help them survive. It's similar 
to why we have the qualia that we have and not others: because they helped 
us at some point in our evolutionary history.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

Hey Cosmin,

What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on
and influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that
causal link manifest?

Some other questions:

Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the
seemingly inevitably slide into solipsism? Why does our world seem
constrained?

Put another way, what is the principle that makes sense of your account of
consciousness such that it can influence some things, but not others?

Terren

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 3:35 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that
> direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think
> about the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works
> for cases of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and
> green emerge on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like
> green, so where does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a
> quale ? So it might be the case that aesthetic components might be
> something special. That's why I would like to hear if you can come up with
> a similar example besides aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely
> where there might be a problem with my ideas about emergence.
>
> 2) This is interesting again. And I thought about it before writing my
> paper about emergence. And indeed I think that your proposal that it might
> just be something related to brain functioning cannot be discarded. The
> reason why I prefer to see it as something related directly to
> consciousness is simply because it can give me the possibility to further
> pursue the issue. If it is something related to brain, then it might be
> contingent, and I cannot see how the phenomenon can be understood any
> further. If it is something related to consciousness, then it is
> interesting because then it is related to fundamental problems regarding
> the nature of meaning and how meaning is generated, so deep thinking in
> these directions can further help us understand consciousness.
>
> 3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that
> even if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention,
> the electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems,
> because in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher
> consciousness. And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness
> is evolved and its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to
> describe the movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The
> electron will simply appear to not follow any law, because the intentions
> of consciousness would be more and more complex and diverse.
>
> Btw, you can find my ideas also published for free in papers:
> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan So if you want to get more
> details about my ideas regarding emergence and self-reference, you can as
> well read the papers.
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:09:54 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1)
>>
>> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you
>> say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as
>> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without
>> implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a
>> piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that
>> the first two have something in common that distinguishes them from the
>> third, and you can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could
>> say that the chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the
>> spoonful of sugar not so much. You can also label this abstraction with
>> some word. Without empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more
>> meaningful than another.
>>
>> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know
>> about sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?)
>> basic flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into
>> the pure qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical
>> relation and emergence becomes nonsensical again. There's just a field of
>> qualia.
>>
>>
>>
> 2)
>>
>
>>
> I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by
>> repetition, like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I to
>> find this interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For example,
>> that our brain requires a certain amount of variety in its inputs,
>> otherwise it tends to a simpler state were apprehension of meaning is no
>> longer possible. In other words, I am proposing a plumber-style
>> explanation, and asking you why/if you think it can be discarded?
>>
>>
>> 3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down
>> influence in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in physical
>> experiments 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/19/2019 5:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the 
qualia of colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of 
black-and-white. You cannot see a color if that color is not emergent 
upon black-and-white (or more specifically shades-of-gray). You 
cannot experience music if music is not emergent upon sounds. You 
cannot taste chocolate if chocolate is not emergent upon sweet. You 
cannot understand Pythagoras Theorem if the understanding of 
Pythagoras Theorem doesn't emerge upon the understandings of 
triangles, angles, lengths, etc. And this is real emergence, because 
you really get new existent entities that never existed before in the 
history of existence. God himself never experienced these qualia.


Ok, I think I understand your presentation better now. You make an 
interesting point, I don't think I ever considered emergence purely on 
the side of qualia as you describe.


There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, 
you say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, 
such as "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation 
without implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias 
of eating a piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. 
You can feel that the first two have something in common that 
distinguishes them from the third, and you can give it the label 
"sweet". At the same time, you could say that the chocolate and french 
fries are pleasant to eat, while the spoonful of sugar not so much. 
You can also label this abstraction with some word. Without empirical 
grounding, nothing makes one distinction more meaningful than another.


What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know 
about sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the 
four(five?) basic flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this 
knowledge into the pure qualia world. Without it, there is no 
preferable hierarchical relation and emergence becomes nonsensical 
again. There's just a field of qualia.




I don't understand your second part of the question regarding our 
"cognitive processes". Are you referring to our specific form of 
human consciousness ? I don't think this is only restricted to our 
human consciousness, for the reason that it happens to all qualia 
that we have. All qualia domains are structured in an emergent way.


I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by 
repetition, like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I 
to find this interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For 
example, that our brain requires a certain amount of variety in its 
inputs, otherwise it tends to a simpler state were apprehension of 
meaning is no longer possible. In other words, I am proposing a 
plumber-style explanation, and asking you why/if you think it can be 
discarded?




2) The main ideas in my book are the emergent structure of 
consciousness and the self-reference which gives birth to the 
emergent structure. The ideas about self-reference that I have are 
rooted in phenomenology. First I observe that consciousness is 
structured in an emergent way, and then I conclude that the reason it 
is like this is because there is an entity called "self-reference" 
that looks-back-at-itself and in this process includes the previously 
existing self and brings a new transcendent self into existence, like 
in the case of colors emerging on top of black-and-white.


I have the problem above with the first part of what you say, but I 
like the second part.




3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down 
influence in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in 
physical experiments have little input from any top level, so they 
behaving according to their own level and display certain laws. But 
when they are part of a greater holistic system, like in the brain 
(which is just an appearance of internal workings in consciousness) 
they receive top-down influence from the intentions in consciousness, 
and so they behave according to the will of consciousness. Is the 
same phenomenon when we speak, that I also gave in my presentation. 
When we speak, we act from the level of intending to transmit certain 
ideas. And this level exercises top-down influence in levels and the 
sentences, words and letters are coming out in accordance with the 
intention from the higher level.


Here I think you are making the ontological/epistemological confusion. 
Another way to describe what you are alluding to above is this: the 
more complex a system, the higher the amount of branching in the trees 
of causation that extend into the past. To describe the movement of an 
election in the ideal conditions of some laboratory experiment, you 
might just require a couple of equations and variables. To describe 
the 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that 
direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think 
about the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works 
for cases of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and 
green emerge on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like 
green, so where does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a 
quale ? So it might be the case that aesthetic components might be 
something special. That's why I would like to hear if you can come up with 
a similar example besides aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely 
where there might be a problem with my ideas about emergence.

2) This is interesting again. And I thought about it before writing my 
paper about emergence. And indeed I think that your proposal that it might 
just be something related to brain functioning cannot be discarded. The 
reason why I prefer to see it as something related directly to 
consciousness is simply because it can give me the possibility to further 
pursue the issue. If it is something related to brain, then it might be 
contingent, and I cannot see how the phenomenon can be understood any 
further. If it is something related to consciousness, then it is 
interesting because then it is related to fundamental problems regarding 
the nature of meaning and how meaning is generated, so deep thinking in 
these directions can further help us understand consciousness.

3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that 
even if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention, 
the electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems, 
because in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher 
consciousness. And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness 
is evolved and its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to 
describe the movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The 
electron will simply appear to not follow any law, because the intentions 
of consciousness would be more and more complex and diverse.

Btw, you can find my ideas also published for free in papers: 
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan So if you want to get more 
details about my ideas regarding emergence and self-reference, you can as 
well read the papers.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:09:54 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
>
> 1)
>
> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you 
> say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as 
> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without 
> implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a 
> piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that 
> the first two have something in common that distinguishes them from the 
> third, and you can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could 
> say that the chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the 
> spoonful of sugar not so much. You can also label this abstraction with 
> some word. Without empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more 
> meaningful than another.
>
> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know 
> about sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) 
> basic flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into 
> the pure qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical 
> relation and emergence becomes nonsensical again. There's just a field of 
> qualia.
>
>  
>
2) 
>
 
>
I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by repetition, 
> like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I to find this 
> interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For example, that our 
> brain requires a certain amount of variety in its inputs, otherwise it 
> tends to a simpler state were apprehension of meaning is no longer 
> possible. In other words, I am proposing a plumber-style explanation, and 
> asking you why/if you think it can be discarded?
>
>
> 3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down 
> influence in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in physical 
> experiments have little input from any top level, so they behaving 
> according to their own level and display certain laws. But when they are 
> part of a greater holistic system, like in the brain (which is just an 
> appearance of internal workings in consciousness) they receive top-down 
> influence from the intentions in consciousness, and so they behave 
> according to the will of consciousness. Is the same phenomenon when we 
> speak, that I also gave in my presentation. When we speak, we act from the 
> level of intending to transmit certain ideas. And this level exercises 
> top-down influence in levels and the sentences, words and letters are 
> coming out in accordance with 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

With (panpsychic-experiential) materialism:

 - the self is not eternal  :(   [ of course you could be frozen in the 
hope for some future technology ])
 - it is an independent consciousness (pretty much so, introducing outside 
chemicals aside)

- pt


On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:21:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> No, this cannot be done. The Self is eternal and it exists necessarily by 
> the fact that it self-refers itself. All you can do is to give the Self 
> different experiences and make him believe he is an individual 
> consciousness. This is happening for example in biological reproduction. 
> What biological reproduction is doing is to make the unique Self to believe 
> he is an independent consciousness. But in order to make him believe that, 
> you need to follow specific conditions as they are realized in biology. As 
> of today, we have no idea what those conditions are that biology satisfy in 
> order to make the Self believe he is an independent consciousness.
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 11:09:36 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course (as you know) I say one could bring a "bunch of atoms together" 
>> to get something that is a conscious self.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia of 
> colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You 
> cannot see a color if that color is not emergent upon black-and-white (or 
> more specifically shades-of-gray). You cannot experience music if music is 
> not emergent upon sounds. You cannot taste chocolate if chocolate is not 
> emergent upon sweet. You cannot understand Pythagoras Theorem if the 
> understanding of Pythagoras Theorem doesn't emerge upon the understandings of 
> triangles, angles, lengths, etc. And this is real emergence, because you 
> really get new existent entities that never existed before in the history of 
> existence. God himself never experienced these qualia. 

Ok, I think I understand your presentation better now. You make an interesting 
point, I don't think I ever considered emergence purely on the side of qualia 
as you describe.

There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you say 
that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as "sweet". 
Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without implicitly alluding 
to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a piece of chocolate, a 
spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that the first two have 
something in common that distinguishes them from the third, and you can give it 
the label "sweet". At the same time, you could say that the chocolate and 
french fries are pleasant to eat, while the spoonful of sugar not so much. You 
can also label this abstraction with some word. Without empirical grounding, 
nothing makes one distinction more meaningful than another.

What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know about 
sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) basic 
flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into the pure 
qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical relation and 
emergence becomes nonsensical again. There's just a field of qualia.

> 
> I don't understand your second part of the question regarding our "cognitive 
> processes". Are you referring to our specific form of human consciousness ? I 
> don't think this is only restricted to our human consciousness, for the 
> reason that it happens to all qualia that we have. All qualia domains are 
> structured in an emergent way.

I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by repetition, 
like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I to find this 
interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For example, that our 
brain requires a certain amount of variety in its inputs, otherwise it tends to 
a simpler state were apprehension of meaning is no longer possible. In other 
words, I am proposing a plumber-style explanation, and asking you why/if you 
think it can be discarded?

> 
> 2) The main ideas in my book are the emergent structure of consciousness and 
> the self-reference which gives birth to the emergent structure. The ideas 
> about self-reference that I have are rooted in phenomenology. First I observe 
> that consciousness is structured in an emergent way, and then I conclude that 
> the reason it is like this is because there is an entity called 
> "self-reference" that looks-back-at-itself and in this process includes the 
> previously existing self and brings a new transcendent self into existence, 
> like in the case of colors emerging on top of black-and-white.

I have the problem above with the first part of what you say, but I like the 
second part.

> 
> 3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down influence 
> in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in physical experiments 
> have little input from any top level, so they behaving according to their own 
> level and display certain laws. But when they are part of a greater holistic 
> system, like in the brain (which is just an appearance of internal workings 
> in consciousness) they receive top-down influence from the intentions in 
> consciousness, and so they behave according to the will of consciousness. Is 
> the same phenomenon when we speak, that I also gave in my presentation. When 
> we speak, we act from the level of intending to transmit certain ideas. And 
> this level exercises top-down influence in levels and the sentences, words 
> and letters are coming out in accordance with the intention from the higher 
> level.

Here I think you are making the ontological/epistemological confusion. Another 
way to describe what you are alluding to above is this: the more complex a 
system, the higher the amount of branching in the trees of causation that 
extend into the past. To describe the movement of an election in the ideal 
conditions of some laboratory experiment, you might just require a couple of 
equations and variables. To 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to 
> implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. Because let's say that a 
> machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" would mean to have 
> another part (A B C) which would contain the "self model". But this would be 
> an extra part of the "self" which would be needed to be included in the "self 
> model" in order to actually have a "self model", so you would need another 
> part (A B C (A B C)). But then again you would need to include this part as 
> well in the "self model". So you will get to infinite regress.

That infinite regress problem can be avoided.

See my answer to a post to Brent (sent today).

The idea is simple: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD.

In this case, DD will never stop, and that is the usual “first” recursion. But 
you can make a program stopping on its own code, by using special quotation, or 
some typical computer science construct, like the SMN theorem of Kleene. It is 
more like:

If D’x’ gives ‘x’x’’, then D’D’ gives ‘D’D’’.

That is the staring point of almost all of theoretical computer science, and 
the study of self-reeve,ce in arithmetical is very well developed.

Thismisses the first person self-reference, which typically does not admit any 
formalisation (provably so), but it is still can be shown to exist, making he 
point that the universal machine knows that they have a first person notion, 
and knows that they cannot define it. The machine are as much confused as us 
with Ramona Mahasrhi koan: “Who am I?”.





> Therefore, you need a special kind of entity to obtained the desired effect 
> without getting into infinite regress. And that's precisely why the 
> self-reference that I'm talking about in the book is unformalizable.


As I said, the machine already knows this. The universal machine (number, 
combinator, or physical) knows that they have a soul (immaterial, immortal, and 
responsible for the illusion of the physical universe and its lawfulness).



> And as you say, being unformalizable, allows for bootstrapping consciousness 
> into existence.

OK.



> You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with atoms. 
> Self-reference just is.

Not OK. You can simulate the self-reference with atoms, and that enacts the 
experience of the first person, which is distributed on the whole arithmetic, 
and can be shown to be non formalisable, nor even definable.



> It just is the source of the entire existence.

It is the source of the entire physical existence, but we have to assume the 
numbers, or the combinators.


> Is not up to anyone to simulate the source of existence.

Indeed.



> You can never obtain the properties of consciousness (meaning, purpose, free 
> will, memory, intelligence, learning, acting, etc.) just by playing around 
> with a bunch of atoms.

You cannot singularise them in some reality, and indeed atoms are immaterial 
constructs depending on intrinsic relation between all universal 
machine/number/combinators.




> All these properties of consciousness are having their source in the 
> unformalizable self-reference.

Yes, but still amenable to meta-formalisation, when we assume mechanism, which 
then explains in detail why the first person is not formalisable, and indeed 
independent of formalisation.

Bruno





> 
> On Thursday, 18 April 2019 04:00:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:
> each consciousness bootstraps its own 
> meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self model in 
> its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would 
> extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Apr 2019, at 09:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> It's still not clear to me what your concept of "machine" is. Is it just an 
> abstract theory or is it some actually existing entity ?

It is a machine in the sense of computer science. It is purely immaterial, and 
can be represented by numbers, or by combinators, of by set of quadruples 
(Turing).

My favorite definition of machine is true the combinator,. I could use to 
define a machine in this (recursive) way:

K is a machine
S is a machine

If x and y are machines, then (x y) is a machine.

So example of machine are K, S (K K) , (S, K), … ((K K) K), (K (K K)), …

We abbreviate ((K K) K) by KKK, and (K (K K)) by K(KK). We suppress

The functioning of the machine is given by the two reduction rule:

Kxy -> x
Sxyz -> xz(yz)

This can be shown Turing universal, so any other digital machine, and digital 
machine execution can be emulated faithfully by such machine.

See the (recent) combinator threads for more on this.

A simple example of a computation is SKSK -> KK(SK) -> K.



> If it is actually existing,

If you agree that x + 2 = 5 admits a solution, then it exist in that sense.  
All other sense of existence are derived for the existence in that sense. There 
are many.





> is it made out of atoms ? Because if it is made out of atoms, where does its 
> free will come from ?


It is of course not made of physical atoms, but you can call “S” and “K” 
combinatoric atoms.

No problem fro free-will for the universal combinator, which of course exists, 
(as the combinator machinery is Turing universal), and universal machine 
(immaterial or material computer) have free-will.



> In the case of humans free will comes from the fact that we are not made out 
> of atoms, but we are consciousnesses, "atoms" being just ideas in us.

OK. But the derivation must explain why atoms have electrons, why orbitals, 
etc. But yes, the physical atoms are eventually reduce to dream made by us, (us 
= the combinator, not the humans which are very particular case of 
machine/number/combinators!).

You might bought some good introductory book on computer science. The original 
papers are the best, I think, so Martin Davis book at Dover are well suited to 
begin with. He use the Turing formalism, where a machine is defined by a set of 
quadruples like q_7 S_9 S_54 q_6, which means if I am in. State 7, in front of 
the symbol S_9, I overwrite the symbol S_54 and go to the state q_6. There are 
also instruction to move left or right on some locally finite, but 
extendendable register/tape. 

If we assume the Church-Turing thesis, any similar formalism will work. 


Bruno




> 
> On Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:04:15 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> They have as much free will as human (direct consequence of the Mechanist 
> assumption).
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Apr 2019, at 01:24, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:34:26AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>For
>>instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
>>a machine, it is just a pile of atoms.
>> 
>>Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, 
>> when nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough 
>> observation abilities?
>> 
>> 
>> What makes the Mars Rover a machine is that it can act and react to its
>> environment.  If it's an AI Rover it can learn and plan and reflect.  To 
>> invoke
>> an "observer" is just push the problem away to "What is an observer?"
> 
> To not recognise the observer is simply to put the problem under a
> rug. Without an interpretation that voltages in excess of 3V represent
> 1, and voltages less than 2V represent 0, the logic circuits are just
> analogue electrical circuits. Without such an interpretation (and
> ipso facto an observer), the rover is not processing data at all!
> 
> Note an observer need be nothing more than a mapping of physical space
> to semantic space. One possibility is to bootstrap the observer by
> self-reflection.

That is needed to just define the “physical space”. This one cannot be invoked 
through an ontological commitment, or mechanism is abandoned of course.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/18/2019 3:17 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to 
>> implement "self model" leads to infinite regress.
> 
> No.  A "model" is not a complete description, it's a representation of some 
> specific aspects. 

Well, indeed. But that is the sense of “model” when used in physics. In logic, 
the model is the reality that we are doing the theory about.

We should avoid the term “model” and talk only on “theory” and reality”, or we 
will risk to bring confusion.

The theory is the (usually incomplete) representation, like a painting. The 
model/reality is what is supposed to being represented.

For example; the theory of arithmetic is

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

But the arithmetical reality is the highly non computable and non axiomatisable 
mathematical structure involving the infinite set N, with 0, +, * and s 
admitting the standard interpretation we are familiar with.



> Your "self-reference" cannot refer to everything about yourself...which 
> according to you is a stream of consciousness.
> 

Yes.



> Brent
> 
>> Because let's say that a machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" 
>> would mean to have another part (A B C) which would contain the "self 
>> model". But this would be an extra part of the "self" which would be needed 
>> to be included in the "self model" in order to actually have a "self model", 
>> so you would need another part (A B C (A B C)). But then again you would 
>> need to include this part as well in the "self model". So you will get to 
>> infinite regress.

I missed this (from Cosmin). Of course that is Driesch “proofs” that Descartes 
will never solve its self-reproduction problem, but that has been solved by the 
second theorem recursion of Kleene (or just Gödel self-referential sentence 
construction). Self-reference here is just obtained by the syntactical 
recursion:

If Dx gives x’x’, then D’D’ gives ‘D’D’’.

See my paper “Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming machine” for more on this. I have 
used the recursion theorem to program a “planaria”. A program that you can cut 
in pieces, and each pieces regenerate the whole program, with its original 
functionality back.

Bruno



>> Therefore, you need a special kind of entity to obtained the desired effect 
>> without getting into infinite regress. And that's precisely why the 
>> self-reference that I'm talking about in the book is unformalizable. And as 
>> you say, being unformalizable, allows for bootstrapping consciousness into 
>> existence. You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with 
>> atoms. Self-reference just is. It just is the source of the entire 
>> existence. Is not up to anyone to simulate the source of existence. You can 
>> never obtain the properties of consciousness (meaning, purpose, free will, 
>> memory, intelligence, learning, acting, etc.) just by playing around with a 
>> bunch of atoms. All these properties of consciousness are having their 
>> source in the unformalizable self-reference.
>> 
>> On Thursday, 18 April 2019 04:00:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:
>> each consciousness bootstraps its own 
>> meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self model in 
>> its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would 
>> extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness.
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> For
>>> instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
>>> a machine, it is just a pile of atoms.
>> Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, 
>> when nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough 
>> observation abilities?
>> 
> What makes the Mars Rover a machine is that it can act and react to its 
> environment. 

Yes. And thanks to the fact that it is implemented in the physical reality (the 
sum on all computation), its reaction will fit with its most probable 
environnement, which is (by definition here) the physical environment.
Just to be precise.




> If it's an AI Rover it can learn and plan and reflect. 

An get the right reaction, whatever is the environment, hopefully not departing 
too much form the physical one.

The “essence” of a computation is to be counterfactually correct. 




> To invoke an "observer" is just push the problem away to "What is an 
> observer?”


But to define the physical reality, we need to define the observer. With 
mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some other 
numbers/machines. We can define an ideal observer by a sound Löbian machine. 
Its physical reality will be determined by the logic of observation (mainly []p 
& <>t).

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

And to add more regarding biology, take into account that reincarnation 
preserves memories from past lives. So biology is not merely "putting atoms 
in the right order". Is more than that. The conditions that biology 
satisfies in order to individuate the unique Self are going beyond mere 
arrangements of atoms.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

No, this cannot be done. The Self is eternal and it exists necessarily by 
the fact that it self-refers itself. All you can do is to give the Self 
different experiences and make him believe he is an individual 
consciousness. This is happening for example in biological reproduction. 
What biological reproduction is doing is to make the unique Self to believe 
he is an independent consciousness. But in order to make him believe that, 
you need to follow specific conditions as they are realized in biology. As 
of today, we have no idea what those conditions are that biology satisfy in 
order to make the Self believe he is an independent consciousness.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 11:09:36 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Of course (as you know) I say one could bring a "bunch of atoms together" 
> to get something that is a conscious self.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
 
 
 On 4/16/2019 6:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every Mars 
>> Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, 
>> its communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.
> 
> I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels is 
> an example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of discussion. 
> The entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, but there is no 
> "Mars Rover mind" where it also exists. The entity "Telmo" exists in your 
> mind and mine, and I happen to be an entity "Telmo" in whose mind the 
> entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real self-reference.
> 
> Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like this 
> could me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, you can 
> define a program P like this:
> 
> program P:
> x = 1
> if x == 1:
> print('My variable x s holding the value 1')
> 
> The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to. It would 
> be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm is x cm 
> long. But let me show what could me meant instead by real self-reference:
> 
> program P:
> if length(P) > 1000:
> print('I am a complicated program')
> else:
> print('I am a simple program')
> 
> Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?
 
 I take your point.  But I think the difference is only one of degree.  In 
 my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology.   That 
 entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the Rover 
 is represented by itself. 
 
 I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
 self-reference.  It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in 
 trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions.  The simulation 
 must generally include the actor at some level.  It's not some mysterious 
 property raising up a ghost in the machine.
>>> 
>>> With self-reference comes also self-modification. The self-replicators of 
>>> nature that slowly adapt and complexify, the brain "rewiring itself"... 
>>> Things get both weird and generative. I suspect that it goes to the core of 
>>> what human intelligence is, and what computer intelligence is not (yet). 
>>> But if you say that self-reference has not magic property that explains 
>>> consciousness, I agree with you.
>> 
>> 
>> You need some magic, but the magic of the truth of  “2+3=5” is enough. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On consciousness I have nothing interesting to say (no jokes about ever 
>>> having had, please :). I think that:
>>> 
>>> consciousness = existence
>> 
>> 
>> Hmm… That looks like God made it. Or like “it is”.
>> 
>> Are you OK with the ideas that from the point of view of a conscious entity, 
>> consciousness is something:
>> 
>> Immediately knowable, and indubitable, (in case the machine can reason)
>> Non definable, and non provable to any other machine.
> 
> I agree. Would this not also apply to the concept of "existance”?

I am not sure what you mean by “existence” when used alone. It might be a 
“professional deformation”, but to me existence is a logical quantifier, and is 
not a intrinsic property.

I think that may be consciousness is a fixed point of existence, in the sense 
that “existence of consciousness” is equivalent with “consciousness”.

If you are using “existence” is a more sophisticated sense, then this should be 
elaborated?

We cannot prove the existence of anything, without assuming the existence of 
something. With mechanism, we have to assume the existence of numbers (or to 
derive from something Turing equivalent, like I did with the combinators), so I 
doubt that existence is immediately knowable, etc. Unless again, you meant 
“existence of consciousness”, but then this cannot apply to define 
consciousness.

You might need to elaborate about what you mean by “existence”, when used alone.





> 
>> 
>> Then the mathematical theory of self-reference explains why machine will 
>> conclude that they are conscious, in that sense. They will know that they 
>> know something that they cannot doubt, yet cannot prove to us, or to anyone. 
>> And they can understand that they can test mechanism by observation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Existence entails self-referential machines, self-referential evolutionary 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

Of course (as you know) I say one could bring a "bunch of atoms together" 
to get something that is a conscious self.

*First 3D Engineered Vascularized Human Heart Is Bioprinted*
https://www.genengnews.com/news/first-3d-engineered-vascularized-human-heart-is-bioprinted/

In the future: a Brain?

The problem is not appreciating *experience* !== information*.

* Experience  (Experientiality) as an ultimate property of matter.

- pt

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 2:52:03 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Exactly. This is the whole point. In order to have self-reference, you 
> need to have a self. And you don't just get a self by arranging atoms in 
> certain positions. You don't get a self by bringing a bunch of atoms 
> together and calling them "a robot", because calling them "a robot" is just 
> something that you yourself do in your own consciousness. Only because you 
> call that bunch of atoms "a robot" it doesn't mean that all of a sudden 
> magic happens and that bunch of atoms really become "a robot", or a self. 
> So you don't just get selves. Self is a rather specific entity. Self is 
> exactly that entity that is included by default in the very notion of 
> "self-reference". Self is that ontological entity that has as its very 
> property the property of referring-back-to-itself. And automatically that 
> kind of entity is unformalizable.
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 10:44:39 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problematic part of "self-reference" is "self".
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Exactly. This is the whole point. In order to have self-reference, you need 
to have a self. And you don't just get a self by arranging atoms in certain 
positions. You don't get a self by bringing a bunch of atoms together and 
calling them "a robot", because calling them "a robot" is just something 
that you yourself do in your own consciousness. Only because you call that 
bunch of atoms "a robot" it doesn't mean that all of a sudden magic happens 
and that bunch of atoms really become "a robot", or a self. So you don't 
just get selves. Self is a rather specific entity. Self is exactly that 
entity that is included by default in the very notion of "self-reference". 
Self is that ontological entity that has as its very property the property 
of referring-back-to-itself. And automatically that kind of entity is 
unformalizable.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 10:44:39 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The problematic part of "self-reference" is "self".
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Vitalism is still true. Nobody knows how a being develops from embryo to 
its fully developed form. DNA is just a book. Nobody knows how it actually 
functions. It might well receive top-down influence in levels from higher 
order consciousness that guides the development of the biological entity.

Then Lob is just talking about other things. The true self-reference is not 
formalisable, since neither is nor not-is.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 02:27:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>
> The same argument was made in favour of vitalism - before the 
> structure and mechanics of DNA was discovered. 
>
> Self-reference is formalisable. See Löb's theorem. 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:27:31 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:17:59AM -0700, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything 
> List wrote: 
>
> Self-reference is formalisable. See Löb's theorem. 
>
>
>


The problematic part of "self-reference" is "self".

HOL theorem proving agents - as developed at MIRI and MIT-CSAIL - (attempt 
to) implement Löbian provability-logic reflection. (*Self-" is used a lot [ 
https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf ].) This may be 
sufficient for non-conscious, intelligent robots.

But if "self" is what (for example) Galen Strawson* defines, the above is 
not "self-reflection".

Because there is no "self".


** at least some ultimates must be experiential*

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/935894.Consciousness_and_Its_Place_in_Nature
 

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Of course there are no atoms. The point is that the robot follows the same 
behavior as the appearances of "atoms" in our consciousness. In other 
words, if you know the behavior of atoms (even though they are nothing more 
than appearances in consciousness), you know the behavior of the robot. 
There is no free will there, no act, no purpose, etc. But in the case of 
consciousnesses, the "atoms" in the "brain" are not enough to predict the 
behavior of a conscious being, because the "atoms" in the "brain" receive 
top-down influence in levels from the intentions of consciousnesses. 
Consciousnesses really have free will, really act, really have purposes. 
This has nothing to do with "scholastic philosophy". This is just rational 
thinking. If you you use your rationality you realize these things. If not, 
you start to believe in fantasies in which robots have souls.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 23:54:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/18/2019 3:34 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are 
> tricking themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no robot 
> there, there are just a bunch of atoms 
>
>
> I thought you didn't believe in atoms.  I look forward to your 
> construction of atoms from consciousness of...what?  atoms?
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.