Re: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything

2005-07-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 28-juil.-05, à 06:20, Marc Geddes a écrit :



O.K, perhaps I should clarify that and state that I
think 'binary numbers' (0's and 1's) are the ultimate
'stuff' of reality.  Pure binary maths by itself is
not quite 'computation' is it?  I think 'computation'
requires that some minimal *meaning* be assigned to
the 0's and 1's.  So I could agree that the universe
is not a computer.  It's just pure binary math.

So what do you think of the idea that the ultimate
fabric of reality is pure binary math?



Perhaps. Any math in which you can represents the computable functions 
will do (assuming comp).
But that will only be the initial decor. The point now is to explain 
the aroma of coffee from it, and not only that, but to get the biggest 
part of the (first person) plenitude. And also the (probably first 
person plural) charge of the electron (just to convince the 
physicist!).


Courage!

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




Re: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything

2005-07-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Nice try, imo. I would say I agree with you except I don't follow your  
precise math at all.
Your old/young lady analogy is rather weak and could be misleading,  
also.


Then you should avoid saying Scientists believe that the universe is  
one giant computer.
Not only many scientist disagree, but actually this is in contradiction  
with the comp. hyp. (the computationalist hypothesis which asserts that  
I am simulable by a computer). I know it is often confuse but I have  
propose an argument according to which if I am a computer then whatever  
the physical universe can be it cannot be a computer (perhaps even it  
cannot be, at all).

(But of course the comp hyp could be false.)

But I like very much the fact that you see that different thing like  
matter and qualia can be the same things viewed differently. Modal  
logic is very well suited for making statements like that utterly  
precise (but then not so many people can play modal logic alas ...).


Don't hesitate to develop (perhaps on some web page).

Bruno


Le 27-juil.-05, à 07:57, Marc Geddes a écrit :


---

Qualia and Matter

---

The riddle of the relationship between Qualia (which I
define as raw experience) and the Physical World
(which I'll call 'Matter' and define as geometrical
relations) seems to be one that ties people in mental
knots.  The solution is amazingly simple and dazzling
in its beauty.  I do think I have the solution.  And
yes, I think it's the answer to FAI, life, the
universe and everything as well ;)  I shall try one
last time to carefully explain why I think I really do
understand everything (in the sense of basic
conceptual principles at least).  I don't hold out
much hope that people will grok , but you never know.



So what is the relation between Matter and Qualia?
Before explaining my solution, I shall begin with an
analogy.  People really seem to tie themselves in
horrible mental knots over this and my explanations
just don't seem to be getting through, so I'll try
starting with an analogy first.

Take a look at the picture at the URL given below.  My
question:  What scene is it?  You have two choices:

(1)  The scene is that of a Young Woman
(2)  The scene is that of an Old Lady

Here's the picture:

http://www.killsometime.com/illusions/Optical-Illusion.asp?Illusion- 
ID=33


The entertaining feature about this picture of course,
is that the scene you see depends on the way your
brain interprets the picture.  The key point is that
the scene you see depends not just on the actual
nature of the picture, but also on the cognitive
interpretation your mind gives to it.  So the scene is
an *interaction* between (1) The nature of the picture
and (2) The Mental interpretation in your mind.  Call
this mental interpretation a 'Cognitive Lens'.  If you
interpret the picture through one Cognitive Lens
you'll see an Old Lady.  If you interpret the picture
through another Cognitive Lens, you'll see a Young
Woman.  Let the multiplication sign (x) simply mean
'an interaction between'.  So:

Young Woman = Picture x Cognitive Lens 1
Old Lady  = Picture x Cognitive Lens 2

Two points to bear in mind.  There is only *one*
actual picture, but there are *two* equally valid but
different ways to interpret it as a coherent scene.
Neither 'Old Lady' nor 'Young Woman' is separate from
each other.  They are both referring to the same
picture.  The key point is the idea that the scene you
see is an interaction between the picture and a
'Cognitive Lens', which I defined to be a mental
interpretation, or the way your brain goes about
coding the *meaning* of the raw visual data its
receiving.  Make sure you understand this before
proceeding.  Are you all with me so far?

Now my actual solution to the Qualia/Matter puzzle.
Here it is:

Qualia = Reality x Cognitive Lens a
Matter =  Reality x Cognitive Lens b

I'm suggesting that Reality itself is neither Matter
NOR Qualia.  In order for Matter or Qualia to appear,
Reality has to be *interpreted* through a *mental
process*.  It's analogous to the picture example I
just gave.  Think of Reality as like the picture,
Qualia as like the 'Young Woman' and Matter as like
'The Old Lady'.  There's only *one* reality, but
whether you see it as Matter or whether you see it as
Qualia depends on the way your brain interprets the
raw data it's receiving.  Both 'Matter' and 'Qualia'
are equally valid interpretations of some part of
reality.  Neither is more fundamental than the other.

See how elegant this solution is?  Qualia and Matter
are both real and Qualia is not Matter.  But there is
nothing mystical going on.  Qualia are not separate
from matter either.  There is only one reality, but
whether you see it as 'Qualia' or 'Matter' depends on
the cognitive lens through which your brain chooses to
interpret reality.  Qualia and Matter are simply
different 'modes of cognition'.  At first it seems
dangerously like solipsism, but I'll show you how to
avoid solipsism in a moment, by adding a big 

RE: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything

2005-07-27 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Imo,
I'd concur with Bruno in 'nice try'. I have lost count of the number of times I 
have seen someone dive in with a proclaimation like yours. I include myself in 
this :P
My reacent outburst is an example!

I can only encourage you to follow your ideaS and poke every eye you see. A bit 
of Feyerabendian anarchy and chaos is a wonderful part of the discourse on the 
way to the real answer.

FIRSTLY
I can give you a hint as to how to evaluate your ideas. Put it to the following 
test:

If I _built_ a machine that followed my metaphor, 

a) would it necessarily have a knowledge model based on it's own determination 
due to experience of the world, or what I bestow on it?
b) would it have a phenomenal consciousness? If not, why not? If so why so? Is 
it important or not to have a pheneomenal consciousness?

As wondeful example is to apply the same logic to Gerald Edelman's model in

Edelman, G. 2003. 'Naturalizing consciousness: A theoretical framework', Proc 
Natl Acad Sci U S A, 100 

Wonderful metaphor. Build onewould it necessarily be conscious (have a 
phenomenal consciousness)?


SECONDLY
Don't be too fussed about Bruno's 'contradiction to COMP HYP'. It's only a 
hypothesis! For the same reasons given above. No matter what level of 
mathematical cogency exists, the maths _does not exist_ and a machine acting 
like it exists is no substitute unless something that does exist is there to 
acknowledge it and understand it. The mathematics appears to have 1st person 
handled but it doesn't because nothing is actually reified. Puting a bunch of 
symbols in a computer substrate does not reify anything.

This is a wonderful fire we all dance around. It looks so different to each 
observer. It's what makes it such a stimulating topic.

enjoy!

Colin Hales




Re: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything

2005-07-27 Thread Marc Geddes

--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Then you should avoid saying Scientists believe
 that the universe is  
 one giant computer.
 Not only many scientist disagree, but actually this
 is in contradiction  
 with the comp. hyp. (the computationalist hypothesis
 which asserts that  
 I am simulable by a computer). I know it is often
 confuse but I have  
 propose an argument according to which if I am a
 computer then whatever  
 the physical universe can be it cannot be a
 computer (perhaps even it  
 cannot be, at all).
 (But of course the comp hyp could be false.)
 

O.K, perhaps I should clarify that and state that I
think 'binary numbers' (0's and 1's) are the ultimate
'stuff' of reality.  Pure binary maths by itself is
not quite 'computation' is it?  I think 'computation'
requires that some minimal *meaning* be assigned to
the 0's and 1's.  So I could agree that the universe
is not a computer.  It's just pure binary math.

So what do you think of the idea that the ultimate
fabric of reality is pure binary math?

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com