Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/2019 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> Assuming there is an ontological world, which is precisely what I have never 
>> found any evidence for.
> 
> You refer to ontological existence and phenomenological existence all the 
> time.

Oops sorry. I meant “assuming an ontological *physical* world".

With mechanism: the ontological existence is given by the use of the 
existential quantification rule in the first order logic applied to the base 
(and weak) Turing-complete used (very elementary arithmetic like RA, or the SK 
theory extended in a first order theory, etc.).

The phenomenological existences are given by the modal first-order “extension" 
of Solovay theorem. I put “extension” in quote, because the first order modal 
extension, unlike their proposition variant, are not axiomatisable. qG is 
PI_2-complete, qG* is PI_1 complete in the Oracle of the Arithmetical Truth. 
(Yes, the arithmetical Noùs is far more powerful than God itself!).

Bruno





> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb9dc458-9d6e-b4ec-c555-f0ac76c1584e%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CB22FE16-D032-4A5A-975D-2172E02F7ABB%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/2/2019 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Assuming there is an ontological world, which is precisely what I have 
never found any evidence for.


You refer to ontological existence and phenomenological existence all 
the time.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb9dc458-9d6e-b4ec-c555-f0ac76c1584e%40verizon.net.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 15:19, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:53:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
>> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
>> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
>> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
>> and tuned into games people could play.
> 
> OK.
> And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> But still, to run programs, including ones that play bridge, poker, chess,  
> one goes to a computer store and buys a computer to run them in.

Yes, if the goal consists in running a program relatively you environment, but 
the existence of the environment is only explained, when we assume Mechanism, 
by the fact that elementary arithmetic run all programs, and that we are 
distributed in them. It is explained by the non trivial statistics on all 
computations that we get when we take incompleteness and computer science into 
account.



> One doesn't go into Best Buy and buy arithmetic and carry it out the door.

Of course. 

The problem is to explain where the physical computer appearance come from, and 
why there is no more white rabbits. At first sight arithmetic predicts too 
much, but then when we do the math, the too much becomes the solution, a bit 
like in quantum mechanics, it is because the wave describe all the path taken 
by the particles, that we get the destructive interference explain why some 
parts is more common than other.

Mechanism does not oppose to physics, only to physicalism. To use mechanism to 
make physical prediction is like to use string theory to taste a pizza. It 
makes no practical sense.

Physics is usually neutral on after death (unlike many physicalist). With 
Mechanism, we can show how much such question are complicated, but also that we 
have tools to measure that complexit, and get a tentative picture of the 
possible everything, and test it with Nature.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebc15537-99c1-4185-badb-8cac34d25dda%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74F844ED-609D-46EC-82E9-4E44D9774C2A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:53:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
> and tuned into games people could play.
>
>
> OK.
> And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
But still, to run programs, including ones that play bridge, poker, chess,  
one goes to a computer store and buys a computer to run them in. One 
doesn't go into Best Buy and buy arithmetic and carry it out the door.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebc15537-99c1-4185-badb-8cac34d25dda%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 23:45, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 6:37 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
>>> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>>> 
>>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>>> in extracting it from the bug.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
>>> ghosts) that make up nature.
>> 
>> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
>> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
>> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial 
>> thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and 
>> mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
>> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
>> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
>> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
>> and tuned into games people could play.
>> 
>> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
>> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make 
>> a stage play to "realize" the characters.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
>> interesting alternative.
>> 
>> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
>> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there 
>> are logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical 
>> facts of the world. The aim of this paper is to clarify what 
>> logical/mathematical facts actually are and how these facts can be 
>> accommodated in a purely physical ontology
> 
> Interesting explication of the materialist view of mathematics.  I notice 
> that he didn't directly consider Goedel's idea that arithmetic has true 
> propositions that can't be proven.  I can see that he could create a 
> hierarchy of  formal systems in which the natural numbers would be another 
> formal system which the semantics of PA refer to.  But are the natural 
> numbers a formal system...or do they have to be formalized in order to serve 
> as a model?
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> One way I can see to proceed materially is to assume that physical ITTMs can 
> be produced
> 
> Infinite-Time Turing Machines
> Joel David Hamkins, Andy Lewis
> https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9808093 
> 
> or something like that where literally infinite-in-length proofs can be 
> "written".
> 
> 
> Or better, some sort of Löbian Theorem Prover which does complete in finite 
> time with finite resources.
> 
> Parametric Bounded Löb’s Theorem and RobustCooperation of Bounded Agents
> Andrew Critch
> https://intelligence.org/files/ParametricBoundedLobsTheorem.pdf
> 
> Löb’s theorem and Gödel’s theorem make predictions about the behavior of
> self-reflective systems with unbounded computational resources with which to
> write and evaluate proofs. However, in the real world, self-reflective systems
> will have limited memory and processing speed, so in this paper we introduce
> an effective version of Löb’s theorem theorem which is applicable given such
> bounded resources. These results have powerful implications for the game
> theory of bounded agents who are able to write proofs about themselves and
> one another, including the capacity to out-perform classical Nash equilibria.


Interesting. Löb’s result are even more fundamental for the … fundamental 
studies, but I don’t claim it is only its main application.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8676a27-a2b2-45a3-a3d6-5cbc6fc5b3e7%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
>> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>> 
>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>> in extracting it from the bug.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
>> ghosts) that make up nature.
> 
> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial 
> thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and 
> mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken and 
> tuned into games people could play.

OK.
And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. 



> 
> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make a 
> stage play to "realize" the characters.

Yes, but that makes not them real. Sherlock Holmes is fictional by definition.



> 
> 
> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
> interesting alternative.
> 
> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf
> 
> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there are 
> logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical facts 
> of the world.

Assuming there is an ontological world, which is precisely what I have never 
found any evidence for. 



> The aim of this paper is to clarify what logical/mathematical facts actually 
> are and how these facts can be accommodated in a purely physical ontology

That is logically impossible when we assume mechanism.



> 
> 
> 
> No matter how one obscures things, to see things as some being material and 
> some being immaterial is dualism. There is no way to wiggle out of that.


Yes, if one believe in things like an ontological Matter, dualism is 
unavoidable, and that is per se already a good reason to doubt that an 
ontological material reality make any sense. But with mechanism, we need to 
assume arithmetic (just to recover Turing’s definition of computation), and 
then it can be shown that we cannot add any more axioms (that what we need to 
have digital universal machine), all the rest has to be deduced from 
arithmetic/computer-science, at the machine’s phenomenological level. It works, 
until now.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6478ac38-9796-4511-950a-e042885613af%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ECD3E889-9FE1-4B46-A9A0-22A93F2826BA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 May 2019, at 23:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 6:37 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
>>> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>>> 
>>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>>> in extracting it from the bug.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
>>> ghosts) that make up nature.
>> 
>> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
>> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
>> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial 
>> thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and 
>> mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
>> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
>> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
>> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
>> and tuned into games people could play.
>> 
>> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
>> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make 
>> a stage play to "realize" the characters.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
>> interesting alternative.
>> 
>> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf
>> 
>> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
>> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there 
>> are logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical 
>> facts of the world. The aim of this paper is to clarify what 
>> logical/mathematical facts actually are and how these facts can be 
>> accommodated in a purely physical ontology
> 
> Interesting explication of the materialist view of mathematics.  I notice 
> that he didn't directly consider Goedel's idea that arithmetic has true 
> propositions that can't be proven.  I can see that he could create a 
> hierarchy of  formal systems in which the natural numbers would be another 
> formal system which the semantics of PA refer to.  But are the natural 
> numbers a formal system...or do they have to be formalized in order to serve 
> as a model?

By Gödel’s 1930 theorem (the completeness theorem, not the incompleteness 
theorem): all consistant theories have a model, in fact all essentially 
undecidable theories (like RA; PA, ZF, …) have an infinity of non-isomorphic 
models. 

Two equivalent version of the completeness theorem (for first order theories) 
are:

A theory is consistent iff it has a model.

A theory proves a proposition p iff p is true in all the models of the theory.

By incompleteness, no (enough rich, essentially undecidable) theories can 
define its own model, or its one semantic (the model of a theory is the same as 
a semantic of a theory).

The fact that, for all effective theory there are true proposition in the 
(standard) model of arithmetic that is not provable in that theory is not 
really an idea by Gödel, but a theorem in mathematics, by Gödel.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No matter how one obscures things, to see things as some being material and 
>> some being immaterial is dualism. There is no way to wiggle out of that.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6478ac38-9796-4511-950a-e042885613af%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a6538239-fabf-6853-a868-d5bac6f98211%40verizon.net
> 

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/31/2019 6:37 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the 
>>> bug, and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>>>
>>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>>> in extracting it from the bug.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no *X* is material and *Y* is immaterial 
>> (like ghosts) that make up nature.
>>
>>
>> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
>> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
>> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of 
>> immaterial thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical 
>> reality, and mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of 
>> meaning.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
> and tuned into games people could play.
>
> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make 
> a stage play to "realize" the characters.
>
>
> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
> interesting alternative.
>
> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf
>
> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there 
> are logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical 
> facts of the world. The aim of this paper is to clarify what 
> logical/mathematical facts actually are and how these facts can be 
> accommodated in a purely physical ontology
>
>
> Interesting explication of the materialist view of mathematics.  I notice 
> that he didn't directly consider Goedel's idea that arithmetic has true 
> propositions that can't be proven.  I can see that he could create a 
> hierarchy of  formal systems in which the natural numbers would be another 
> formal system which the semantics of PA refer to.  But are the natural 
> numbers a formal system...or do they have to be formalized in order to 
> serve as a model?
>
> Brent
>
>
One way I can see to proceed materially is to assume that physical ITTMs 
can be produced

I*nfinite-Time Turing Machines*
Joel David Hamkins, Andy Lewis
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9808093

or something like that where literally infinite-in-length proofs can be 
"written".


Or better, some sort of Löbian Theorem Prover which does complete in finite 
time with finite resources.

*Parametric Bounded Löb’s Theorem and RobustCooperation of Bounded Agents*
Andrew Critch
https://intelligence.org/files/ParametricBoundedLobsTheorem.pdf

Löb’s theorem and Gödel’s theorem make predictions about the behavior of
self-reflective systems with unbounded computational resources with which to
write and evaluate proofs. However, in the real world, self-reflective 
systems
will have limited memory and processing speed, so in this paper we introduce
an effective version of Löb’s theorem theorem which is applicable given such
bounded resources. These results have powerful implications for the game
theory of bounded agents who are able to write proofs about themselves and
one another, including the capacity to out-perform classical Nash 
equilibria.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8676a27-a2b2-45a3-a3d6-5cbc6fc5b3e7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[John Clark]

>
> *> Could you send me 5g of consciousness?*


No because consciousness is a property and adjectives are not measured in
grams, only nouns are.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0RngfaHbKtxLtT2SNuOWuLM6_Hz8s-5MF4f4MxL6EAOw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/31/2019 6:37 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > wrote:



On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:



You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it
from the bug, and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract.

I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first
person (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is
material, you should succeed in extracting it from the bug.

Bruno


I'm not a dualist, so there is no /X/ is material and /Y/ is
immaterial (like ghosts) that make up nature.


But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with
its implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a
tun or immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the
existence of immaterial thing, like numbers, will make eventually
the whole physical reality, and mathematical reality into fiction,
making the term devoid of meaning.

Bruno



A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words 
and symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of 
algorithm or (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably 
fictional board games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - 
which could be taken and tuned into games people could play.


But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as 
one can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text 
and make a stage play to "realize" the characters.



You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is 
an interesting alternative.


ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf

If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, 
everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. 
Accordingly, if there are logical/mathematical facts, they must be 
necessitated by the physical facts of the world. The aim of this paper 
is to clarify what logical/mathematical facts actually are and how 
these facts can be accommodated in a purely physical ontology


Interesting explication of the materialist view of mathematics.  I 
notice that he didn't directly consider Goedel's idea that arithmetic 
has true propositions that can't be proven.  I can see that he could 
create a hierarchy of  formal systems in which the natural numbers would 
be another formal system which the semantics of PA refer to.  But are 
the natural numbers a formal system...or do they have to be formalized 
in order to serve as a model?


Brent





No matter how one obscures things, to see things as some being 
material and some being immaterial is dualism. There is no way to 
wiggle out of that.


@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6478ac38-9796-4511-950a-e042885613af%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a6538239-fabf-6853-a868-d5bac6f98211%40verizon.net.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the 
>> bug, and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>>
>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>> in extracting it from the bug.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> I'm not a dualist, so there is no *X* is material and *Y* is immaterial 
> (like ghosts) that make up nature.
>
>
> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of 
> immaterial thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical 
> reality, and mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of 
> meaning.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
(dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
and tuned into games people could play.

But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make 
a stage play to "realize" the characters.


You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
interesting alternative.

ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf

If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there 
are logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical 
facts of the world. The aim of this paper is to clarify what 
logical/mathematical facts actually are and how these facts can be 
accommodated in a purely physical ontology



No matter how one obscures things, to see things as some being material and 
some being immaterial is dualism. There is no way to wiggle out of that.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6478ac38-9796-4511-950a-e042885613af%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
> 
> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
> in extracting it from the bug.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
> ghosts) that make up nature.

But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or immaterial 
things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial thing, like 
numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and mathematical 
reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce7cf64a-9ccf-43b7-89ea-8c310500cbbb%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A7C9DC0F-0748-4834-A188-3341327D1AD8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the 
> bug, and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>
> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
> in extracting it from the bug.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I'm not a dualist, so there is no *X* is material and *Y* is immaterial 
(like ghosts) that make up nature.


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce7cf64a-9ccf-43b7-89ea-8c310500cbbb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 May 2019, at 19:38, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 8:27:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 28 May 2019, at 19:57, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> n Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> On 27 May 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>> If you are a real materialist (Strawson's term), then consciousness is a 
>> property of  (at least) the matter that fills up our skulls. Consciousness 
>> is 100% material.
>> 
>> That has no meaning for me. Could you send me 5g of consciousness, tell me 
>> how it reacts, etc. 
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> 
>> Would you like a bug
>> 
>>
>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> or a small mouse
>> 
>>https://splice-bio.com/origins-of-consciousness/ 
>> 
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/13/485830648/a-mouse-watches-film-noir-and-offers-clues-to-human-consciousness
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ?
> 
> 
> Phillip. I don’t see the relation between the likes and my point. It would be 
> easier to make your  point, and add the links only for those wanting more 
> information, or details.

You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, and 
send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 

I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person (conscious) 
experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed in extracting 
it from the bug.

Bruno




> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You requested "Could you send me 5g of consciousness".
> 
> 
> Of course I could send you that!
> 
> Do you want a bug or a mouse sent to you?
> 
> @philipthrift
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26df0c20-9847-4c40-b3f8-35cd83ca544e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B245F42C-568A-44E2-9DCB-BF554EAF47C0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 8:27:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 May 2019, at 19:57, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
> n Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27 May 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> If you are a real materialist (Strawson's term), then consciousness is a 
>> property of  (at least) the matter that fills up our skulls. Consciousness 
>> is 100% material.
>>
>>
>> That has no meaning for me. Could you send me 5g of consciousness, tell 
>> me how it reacts, etc. 
>>
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>
>
> Would you like a bug
>
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/
>
> or a small mouse
>
>https://splice-bio.com/origins-of-consciousness/
>
> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/13/485830648/a-mouse-watches-film-noir-and-offers-clues-to-human-consciousness
>  
>
> ?
>
>
>
> Phillip. I don’t see the relation between the likes and my point. It would 
> be easier to make your  point, and add the links only for those wanting 
> more information, or details.
>
> Bruno
>
>


You requested *"Could you send me 5g of consciousness".*


Of course I could send you that!

Do you want a bug or a mouse sent to you?

@philipthrift
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/26df0c20-9847-4c40-b3f8-35cd83ca544e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 May 2019, at 19:57, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> n Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 27 May 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift > wrote:
> 
> If you are a real materialist (Strawson's term), then consciousness is a 
> property of  (at least) the matter that fills up our skulls. Consciousness is 
> 100% material.
> 
> That has no meaning for me. Could you send me 5g of consciousness, tell me 
> how it reacts, etc. 
> 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> Would you like a bug
> 
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/
> 
> or a small mouse
> 
>https://splice-bio.com/origins-of-consciousness/
>
> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/13/485830648/a-mouse-watches-film-noir-and-offers-clues-to-human-consciousness
>  
> 
> ?


Phillip. I don’t see the relation between the likes and my point. It would be 
easier to make your  point, and add the links only for those wanting more 
information, or details.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54ca54d1-f102-4bd1-9c33-c9eb3c4d63d2%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4807C4DF-7801-405F-81C8-10B4D44DDD47%40ulb.ac.be.

Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Philip Thrift]

n Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 May 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
> If you are a real materialist (Strawson's term), then consciousness is a 
> property of  (at least) the matter that fills up our skulls. Consciousness 
> is 100% material.
>
>
> That has no meaning for me. Could you send me 5g of consciousness, tell me 
> how it reacts, etc. 
>
>
> Bruno 
>


Would you like a bug

  
 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/

or a small mouse

   https://splice-bio.com/origins-of-consciousness/
  
 
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/13/485830648/a-mouse-watches-film-noir-and-offers-clues-to-human-consciousness
 

?

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54ca54d1-f102-4bd1-9c33-c9eb3c4d63d2%40googlegroups.com.