Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nicevideodiscussingthedual aspect theory

2012-10-08 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Bruno Marchal 

I was just trying to formulate my view of subjectivity into
terms you use, like 1p, but I only seem to have confused things.

Apparently 1p is not the state of living subjectivity, at best it is a 
description of that.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/8/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-07, 10:08:58 
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A 
nicevideodiscussingthedual aspect theory 




Hi Roger Clough, 


Hi Bruno Marchal   

1) That's not subjectivity. That's objectivity. Wrong perspective. Subjectivity 
is  
the view from within, looking out, not the view from outside objectively 
looking in.  
1p does refer to a particular person, although indeterminately, but from 
outside, objectively. 


What do you mean by that? I think you confuse the third person point of view on 
some first person view, like when we attribute consciousness to some other, 
with the consciousness of the subject itself. The first person indeterminacy 
needs the second of those option, and corresponds to what you call the 
subjectivity. Then the math shows that such subjectivity has no objective 
correspondent, making it irreducibibly subjective. 


When you say yes to the doctor, it is NOT because the doctor will make a 
working copy of you, it is because YOU believe that YOU will subjectively 
survive in the usual sense. 


If that is not clear at step 0, 1 or even 2, it has to be cleared up at the 
step 3 in the sane04 paper, to get the first person indeterminacy. 


Please read this carefully, you were far too quick. Tell me when you understand 
the step 3, which is the step proving the existence of a necessary subjective 
indeterminacy, in a purely objective and determinate setting, once we assume 
comp. 


I found and published this more than 30 years ago, and got a price for that a 
bit later, but it is still ignored, a bit like Everett in QM (which use a 
similar idea). All the UDA reversal between physics and number theology is 
built on that notion. 


Bruno 











sub?ec?ive (sb-jktv)  
adj.  

1.  
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external 
world: a subjective decision.  
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.  
2. Moodily introspective 
1a means that the issue does not take place in the external world, it takes 
place inside a person's mind. 
1b means that the issue is personal, not publicly available. 

2) Were the physical laws there before the universe was created ? 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net  
10/7/2012   
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen  


- Receiving the following content -   
From: Bruno Marchal   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2012-10-06, 15:19:35  
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice 
videodiscussingthedual aspect theory  


Hi Roger Clough,  


On 06 Oct 2012, at 16:47, Roger Clough wrote:  


Hi Bruno Marchal


How does comp include subjectivity ?  



As I said, comp is a bet on a form of reincarnation, as you accept to change 
your body for a new (digital) one.  
Comp, by definition, at least the one I gave, is the bet that your subjectivity 
is invariant for some change made in the local universe.  


It presupposes subjectivity at the start. You might read:  


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html  




Hi Stathis Papaioannou   

Don't avoid my question please.  
Where do the laws of physics come from ?  


I will answer this, of course Stathis can comment.  


The laws of physics comes from the arithmetical truth, actually a tiny part of 
it. They are the way the intensional or relative universal numbers see 
themselves in a persistent (symmetrical, with probability close to one) manner. 
Physics is what stabilize consciousness in the number realm.  The details on 
this are what we are aligned on, so I refer to the posts, and to the paper 
above to see the link with comp and arithmetic).  
But you can ask question (I cannot sum up the thing in one sentence).  


You must get the technical point that arithmetical truth emulates all 
computations. Then everything follows from comp, the dreams, and the 
indeterminacy on them.  


Bruno  





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net   
10/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen   


- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04   
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video 
discussingthedual aspect theory   


Hi Roger Clough,   


On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:   


Hi Bruno Marchal   



I understand that comp does not include subjectivity,   

but that's just explicitly.   


?   

Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice videodiscussingthedual aspect theory

2012-10-07 Thread Bruno Marchal 


Hi Roger Clough,


Hi Bruno Marchal

1) That's not subjectivity. That's objectivity. Wrong perspective.  
Subjectivity is
the view from within, looking out, not the view from outside  
objectively looking in.
1p does refer to a particular person, although indeterminately, but  
from outside, objectively.


What do you mean by that? I think you confuse the third person point  
of view on some first person view, like when we attribute  
consciousness to some other, with the consciousness of the subject  
itself. The first person indeterminacy needs the second of those  
option, and corresponds to what you call the subjectivity. Then the  
math shows that such subjectivity has no objective correspondent,  
making it irreducibibly subjective.


When you say yes to the doctor, it is NOT because the doctor will make  
a working copy of you, it is because YOU believe that YOU will  
subjectively survive in the usual sense.


If that is not clear at step 0, 1 or even 2, it has to be cleared up  
at the step 3 in the sane04 paper, to get the first person  
indeterminacy.


Please read this carefully, you were far too quick. Tell me when you  
understand the step 3, which is the step proving the existence of a  
necessary subjective indeterminacy, in a purely objective and  
determinate setting, once we assume comp.


I found and published this more than 30 years ago, and got a price for  
that a bit later, but it is still ignored, a bit like Everett in QM  
(which use a similar idea). All the UDA reversal between physics and  
number theology is built on that notion.


Bruno







sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than  
the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective
1a means that the issue does not take place in the external world,  
it takes place inside a person's mind.

1b means that the issue is personal, not publicly available.

2) Were the physical laws there before the universe was created ?

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 15:19:35
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice  
videodiscussingthedual aspect theory



Hi Roger Clough,


On 06 Oct 2012, at 16:47, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal


How does comp include subjectivity ?



As I said, comp is a bet on a form of reincarnation, as you accept  
to change your body for a new (digital) one.
Comp, by definition, at least the one I gave, is the bet that your  
subjectivity is invariant for some change made in the local universe.



It presupposes subjectivity at the start. You might read:


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html




Hi Stathis Papaioannou

Don't avoid my question please.
Where do the laws of physics come from ?


I will answer this, of course Stathis can comment.


The laws of physics comes from the arithmetical truth, actually a  
tiny part of it. They are the way the intensional or relative  
universal numbers see themselves in a persistent (symmetrical, with  
probability close to one) manner. Physics is what stabilize  
consciousness in the number realm.  The details on this are what we  
are aligned on, so I refer to the posts, and to the paper above to  
see the link with comp and arithmetic).

But you can ask question (I cannot sum up the thing in one sentence).


You must get the technical point that arithmetical truth emulates  
all computations. Then everything follows from comp, the dreams, and  
the indeterminacy on them.



Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video  
discussingthedual aspect theory



Hi Roger Clough,


On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal



I understand that comp does not include subjectivity,

but that's just explicitly.


?

Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms,
so it includes subjectivity at the start.
And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the
quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all
scientists, have to postulate initially.

I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity.
Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of
technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in
an important way.

The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no
more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the
consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that  
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.  
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body  
problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the  
first person indeterminacy.
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non  
trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.


Bruno



Hi Bruno,

   Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp,  
because comp, as currently formulated


What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism  
(yes doctor, + Church thesis).






only understands the other aspect as a body problem.


That's the result.




I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy;


?




they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an  
infinite number of instances of a body.


You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in  
arithmetic. This is not entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute  
to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p- 
indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.






The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons.


?



If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any  
relations beyond itself?


Trivial?



   Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp  
already.


?




Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true  
and mutually non-contradictory?


?

The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs  
semantics (models).


Bruno

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that 
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. 
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body 
problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first 
person indeterminacy.
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non 
trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.


Bruno



Hi Bruno,

   Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, 
because comp, as currently formulated


What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism 
(yes doctor, + Church thesis).


Hi Bruno,

I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to 
appeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build 
your hypostaces, no?








only understands the other aspect as a body problem.


That's the result.


Right. Not the singular form!






I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy;


?


They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many minds.






they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an 
infinite number of instances of a body.


You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in 
arithmetic. 


Yes.


This is not entirely trivial to prove.


Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist.

You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did 
not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.




How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative 
incarnations exists? You prove it by demonstration via the copy and 
paste operations. Do you think that this is the only method of 
generating a plurality of minds?







The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons.


?



If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any 
relations beyond itself?


Trivial?


I misread your original sentence.





   Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp 
already.


?


Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a 
conspiracy of numbers?  Are you talking literally about numbers







Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true 
and mutually non-contradictory?


?

The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs 
semantics (models).


Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the 
signified 
http://books.google.com/books?id=8oPAcxDOL0ICpg=PA59lpg=PA59dq=%22problem+of+the+signified%22+semiotic+theorysource=blots=OCjSwCjcVSsig=s9s6nS-AVew_BQ5OdnhEKJs5O-Ahl=ensa=Xei=o-JvUPi-BoOw8ASV4oDQDgved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepageq=%22problem%20of%20the%20signified%22%20semiotic%20theoryf=false  
or meaning in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas of Platonism...


This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is 
nice, not sure if you known Spanish




Bruno

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






--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In  
that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers,  
seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the  
mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware  
of the first person indeterminacy.
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non  
trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.


Bruno



Hi Bruno,

   Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp,  
because comp, as currently formulated


What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of  
mechanism (yes doctor, + Church thesis).


Hi Bruno,

I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to  
appeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build  
your hypostaces, no?


No. It is contained in Church thesis. Church thesis assumed elementary  
arithmetic (and thus the Sigma_1, etc.).













only understands the other aspect as a body problem.


That's the result.


Right. Not the singular form!


Well it is a sequence of result. 1p-indeterminacy, non-locality, non  
cloning, reduction of the mind-body problem to an arithmetical body  
problem, theory of quanta as part of a theory of qualia, etc. Just  
read the papers, as my answer can only point on what has already be  
done.










I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy;


?


They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many  
minds.


The assumption have been made clear. None of what you say is assumed.









they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an  
infinite number of instances of a body.


You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in  
arithmetic.


Yes.


This is not entirely trivial to prove.


Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist.


?





You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they  
did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.




How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative  
incarnations exists?


It is an elementary consequence of comp. All the existence of  
universal numbers is a consequence of arithmetical truth. (Of course  
all arithmetical theory will miss some of such existence, but they  
still exist in arithmetical truth which is beyond all theories).






You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations.


?



Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality  
of minds?


See my answer to Clark. I have already explain this.











The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons.


?



If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any  
relations beyond itself?


Trivial?


I misread your original sentence.


OK.








   Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp  
already.


?


Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a  
conspiracy of numbers?


Why? Not at all.




Are you talking literally about numbers



Yes. 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... With the laws

x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 x *0 = 0
 x*s(y) = x*y + x

And nothing else (except for some logic sugar), and the comp assumption.









Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are  
true and mutually non-contradictory?


?

The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth  
needs semantics (models).


Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the  
signified  or meaning in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas  
of Platonism...


This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is  
nice, not sure if you known Spanish


Make your point, please.

Bruno

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-06 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Bruno Marchal

I understand that comp does not include subjectivity, 
but that's just explicitly. Perhaps something can be made of the 
results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an
essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm.
That would be a numerical caclulation.  Could you be wrong ?  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/6/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06 
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe 
dual aspect theory 


Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, 

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that  
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.  
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.  
It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person  
indeterminacy. 
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial  
derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. 

Bruno 


On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:15, Richard Ruquist wrote: 

 Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, 
 I recommend the book 
 Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of 
 Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. 
 It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how 
 consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. 
 Richard 
 
 
 On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough   
 wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 Many thanks, Stephan ! 
 
 I should have known it before, but 
 double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories 
 of mind aren't afraid of using the word 
 subjectivity. 
 
 Now all they have to do is find out 
 who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity ! 
 
 
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 10/5/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 
 
 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Stephen P. King 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 
 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory 
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 
 
 -- 
 Onward! 
 
 Stephen 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
 Groups Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-  
 l...@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com  
 . 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en  
 . 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
 Groups Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-  
 l...@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com  
 . 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en  
 . 
 
 
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
 Groups Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com  
 . 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en  
 . 
 

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



--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Bruno Marchal  

IMHO mind is constructive mathematics, 
creating meaningful structures from raw experience.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/6/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-06, 04:39:30 
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! 




On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote: 


On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:  


On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:  

Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,  

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig 
is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp 
necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory 
variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy.  
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial 
derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.  

Bruno  



Hi Bruno,  

   Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, because 
comp, as currently formulated  


What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism (yes 
doctor, + Church thesis).  


Hi Bruno, 

I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to appeal to 
the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build your hypostaces, no? 



No. It is contained in Church thesis. Church thesis assumed elementary 
arithmetic (and thus the Sigma_1, etc.). 















only understands the other aspect as a body problem.  


That's the result.  


Right. Not the singular form! 



Well it is a sequence of result. 1p-indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, 
reduction of the mind-body problem to an arithmetical body problem, theory of 
quanta as part of a theory of qualia, etc. Just read the papers, as my answer 
can only point on what has already be done. 










I disagree that they are unaware of 1p indeterminacy;  


?  


They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many minds. 



The assumption have been made clear. None of what you say is assumed.  











they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an infinite 
number of instances of a body.  


You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic.  

Yes. 


This is not entirely trivial to prove. 

Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist. 



? 








You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not 
ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.  



How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative incarnations 
exists?  


It is an elementary consequence of comp. All the existence of universal numbers 
is a consequence of arithmetical truth. (Of course all arithmetical theory will 
miss some of such existence, but they still exist in arithmetical truth which 
is beyond all theories). 








You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations.  


?   






Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality of minds? 



See my answer to Clark. I have already explain this. 














The non-trivial derivation is necessary for obvious reasons.  


?  




If a fact is trivial, how does it have any reach to explain any relations 
beyond itself?  


Trivial?  


I misread your original sentence. 



OK. 










   Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp already.  


?  


Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a conspiracy 
of numbers?   


Why? Not at all. 






Are you talking literally about numbers 





Yes. 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... With the laws 


x + 0 = x   
x + s(y) = s(x + y)  


 x *0 = 0 
 x*s(y) = x*y + x


And nothing else (except for some logic sugar), and the comp assumption. 











Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are true and 
mutually non-contradictory?  


?  

The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs semantics 
(models).  


Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the signified  
or meaning in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas of Platonism...  

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is nice, not 
sure if you known Spanish 



Make your point, please. 


Bruno 


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory

2012-10-06 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi meekerdb  

No, I haven't read them, but if they had 
a sensible explanation of the creation of life  
from inert matter, we'd all have heard of it by now.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/6/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-05, 21:39:08 
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video 
discussingthedual aspect theory 


On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:  
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: 

 Hi Richard Ruquist   
  
 I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,  
 and have other sources besides that.  
  
 What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central  
 mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living 
 matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is 
 such a thing. 

I suppose you've read the basics: Origins of Life by Freeman Dyson, The Origins 
of Life by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Life's Origin ed. by William 
Schopf. 

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 

Hi Roger Clough,


On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I understand that comp does not include subjectivity,
but that's just explicitly.


?

Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms,  
so it includes subjectivity at the start.
And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the  
quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all  
scientists, have to postulate initially.


I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity.  
Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of  
technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in  
an important way.


The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no  
more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the  
consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp)  
is testable, as physics is entirely retrievable in comp (and up to  
now, it gives the correct quantum logic).






Perhaps something can be made of the
results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an
essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm.
That would be a numerical caclulation.  Could you be wrong ?


Sure. Comp can be wrong, and my argument can be wrong too, but then  
the argument is precise enough so that you if you assert that it is  
wrong, you have to find where (if enough polite 'course).




Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of
raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's
called Secondness.



Yes. That is what all universal systems do all the time, almost  
everywhere, in arithmetic. They build sense from patterns, in a  
variated inexhaustible number of manner, and this by participating  
simultaneously to infinities of computations (that is special number  
relations).



I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on  
the (Firstness)

output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness.


It is not entirely meaningless, but it still assumes Aristotle, and  
does not really approach the question in philosophy of mind/matter. It  
assumes the basic Aristotelian metaphysics which I argue to be  
logically incompatible with comp.


There is not output to comp, as comp is not a program or a machine,  
but a theory, which just postulates that your subjective life is  
invariant for a a digital change made at some description level of  
your brain or body. The consequence is that the brain and your body  
are emergent relative patterns in arithmetic. It makes the whole  
physics a branch of the theology of numbers, itself part of arithmetic.


Comp is just the assumption that we are machine. It is the favorite  
hypothesis of the materialist, which are understandably not happy with  
the result which is that comp is incompatible with even very weak  
version of materialism (the belief in the existence of Matter or  
primary matter and that is a relation with the matter we can observe).


COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1.

To be sure, COMP is still compatible, logically, with the existence of  
primary matter as an epinoumenon (that is a Matter not related to  
anything we can subjectively observe).


Assuming comp things should be like that:

NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS  MATTER


IMHO mind is constructive mathematics,
creating meaningful structures from raw experience.


That intuition is confirmed by the math of comp + the classical theory  
of knowledge (Plato, Theaetetus, ...): the third hypostase (Bp  p)  
describe a constructivist intuitionist subject close to Brouwer theory  
of consciousness. Indeed. Like the logic of matter justifies quantum  
logic (without assuming anything physical).


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video  
discussingthe dual aspect theory



Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.
It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person
indeterminacy.
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial
derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.

Bruno


On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:15, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by  
materialism.

Richard


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough
wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory

2012-10-06 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Bruno Marchal  


How does comp include subjectivity ?

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/6/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04 
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video 
discussingthedual aspect theory 


Hi Roger Clough, 


On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote: 

 Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
 I understand that comp does not include subjectivity, 
 but that's just explicitly. 

? 

Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms,  
so it includes subjectivity at the start. 
And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the  
quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all  
scientists, have to postulate initially. 

I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity.  
Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of  
technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in  
an important way. 

The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no  
more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the  
consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp)  
is testable, as physics is entirely retrievable in comp (and up to  
now, it gives the correct quantum logic). 




 Perhaps something can be made of the 
 results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an 
 essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm. 
 That would be a numerical caclulation. Could you be wrong ? 

Sure. Comp can be wrong, and my argument can be wrong too, but then  
the argument is precise enough so that you if you assert that it is  
wrong, you have to find where (if enough polite 'course). 


 Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of 
 raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's 
 called Secondness. 


Yes. That is what all universal systems do all the time, almost  
everywhere, in arithmetic. They build sense from patterns, in a  
variated inexhaustible number of manner, and this by participating  
simultaneously to infinities of computations (that is special number  
relations). 


 I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on  
 the (Firstness) 
 output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness. 

It is not entirely meaningless, but it still assumes Aristotle, and  
does not really approach the question in philosophy of mind/matter. It  
assumes the basic Aristotelian metaphysics which I argue to be  
logically incompatible with comp. 

There is not output to comp, as comp is not a program or a machine,  
but a theory, which just postulates that your subjective life is  
invariant for a a digital change made at some description level of  
your brain or body. The consequence is that the brain and your body  
are emergent relative patterns in arithmetic. It makes the whole  
physics a branch of the theology of numbers, itself part of arithmetic. 

Comp is just the assumption that we are machine. It is the favorite  
hypothesis of the materialist, which are understandably not happy with  
the result which is that comp is incompatible with even very weak  
version of materialism (the belief in the existence of Matter or  
primary matter and that is a relation with the matter we can observe). 

COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1. 

To be sure, COMP is still compatible, logically, with the existence of  
primary matter as an epinoumenon (that is a Matter not related to  
anything we can subjectively observe). 

Assuming comp things should be like that: 

NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS  MATTER 

 IMHO mind is constructive mathematics, 
 creating meaningful structures from raw experience. 

That intuition is confirmed by the math of comp + the classical theory  
of knowledge (Plato, Theaetetus, ...): the third hypostase (Bp  p)  
describe a constructivist intuitionist subject close to Brouwer theory  
of consciousness. Indeed. Like the logic of matter justifies quantum  
logic (without assuming anything physical). 

Bruno 



 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 10/6/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 
 
 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Bruno Marchal 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06 
 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video  
 discussingthe dual aspect theory 
 
 
 Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, 
 
 Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that 
 sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. 
 They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. 
 It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person 
 indeterminacy. 
 It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial 
 derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers. 
 
 Bruno

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread meekerdb 

On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. This is not 
entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If 
they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter. 


In what sense are these incarnations 'the same person'?  In Everett's MWI they share some 
past history and memories, but obviously they diverge and are no longer 'the same'.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 06 Oct 2012, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in  
arithmetic. This is not entirely trivial to prove. You can't  
attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not  
ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.


In what sense are these incarnations 'the same person'?


In the same sense that, before opening the the out door of the  
Washington and MOscow reconstitution boxes, they are the same as that  
guy who decided to do the experience in Sidney.


In real life (arithmetical truth) we do that experience an infinity  
of times per possible computational steps going through our current  
state.



In Everett's MWI they share some past history and memories, but  
obviously they diverge and are no longer 'the same'.


Same here.

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthedual aspect theory

2012-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 

Hi Roger Clough,

On 06 Oct 2012, at 16:47, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal


How does comp include subjectivity ?


As I said, comp is a bet on a form of reincarnation, as you accept to  
change your body for a new (digital) one.
Comp, by definition, at least the one I gave, is the bet that your  
subjectivity is invariant for some change made in the local universe.


It presupposes subjectivity at the start. You might read:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html



Hi Stathis Papaioannou

Don't avoid my question please.
Where do the laws of physics come from ?


I will answer this, of course Stathis can comment.

The laws of physics comes from the arithmetical truth, actually a tiny  
part of it. They are the way the intensional or relative universal  
numbers see themselves in a persistent (symmetrical, with probability  
close to one) manner. Physics is what stabilize consciousness in the  
number realm.  The details on this are what we are aligned on, so I  
refer to the posts, and to the paper above to see the link with comp  
and arithmetic).

But you can ask question (I cannot sum up the thing in one sentence).

You must get the technical point that arithmetical truth emulates all  
computations. Then everything follows from comp, the dreams, and the  
indeterminacy on them.


Bruno




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video  
discussingthedual aspect theory



Hi Roger Clough,


On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I understand that comp does not include subjectivity,
but that's just explicitly.


?

Comp is defined by the invariance of subjectivity for some transforms,
so it includes subjectivity at the start.
And, in the conclusion, it gives to subjectivity and consciousness the
quasi primary goal for everything, except the numbers that we, and all
scientists, have to postulate initially.

I have no clue why you think that comp does not include subjectivity.
Comp is the theological believe in the possibility in a form of
technological reincarnation. This assumes subjectivity and persons in
an important way.

The consequence is that you survive anyway, and that dying is no
more logically possible or even meaningfull, but that is in the
consequence. I don't know if it is true, but the whole theory (comp)
is testable, as physics is entirely retrievable in comp (and up to
now, it gives the correct quantum logic).





Perhaps something can be made of the
results, like extract energy (structure, which I take to be an
essential of consciousness) from the results. Hmmm.
That would be a numerical caclulation. Could you be wrong ?


Sure. Comp can be wrong, and my argument can be wrong too, but then
the argument is precise enough so that you if you assert that it is
wrong, you have to find where (if enough polite 'course).



Perhaps mind, like Maxwell's Demon, makes sense of
raw experience. Finds structure or whatever. That's
called Secondness.



Yes. That is what all universal systems do all the time, almost
everywhere, in arithmetic. They build sense from patterns, in a
variated inexhaustible number of manner, and this by participating
simultaneously to infinities of computations (that is special number
relations).



I wonder if something like this, used as a (Secondness) filter on
the (Firstness)
output of comp , could provide (Thirdness) structured consciousness.


It is not entirely meaningless, but it still assumes Aristotle, and
does not really approach the question in philosophy of mind/matter. It
assumes the basic Aristotelian metaphysics which I argue to be
logically incompatible with comp.

There is not output to comp, as comp is not a program or a machine,
but a theory, which just postulates that your subjective life is
invariant for a a digital change made at some description level of
your brain or body. The consequence is that the brain and your body
are emergent relative patterns in arithmetic. It makes the whole
physics a branch of the theology of numbers, itself part of  
arithmetic.


Comp is just the assumption that we are machine. It is the favorite
hypothesis of the materialist, which are understandably not happy with
the result which is that comp is incompatible with even very weak
version of materialism (the belief in the existence of Matter or
primary matter and that is a relation with the matter we can observe).

COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1.

To be sure, COMP is still compatible, logically, with the existence of
primary matter as an epinoumenon (that is a Matter not related to
anything we can subjectively observe).

Assuming comp things should be like that:

NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS  MATTER


IMHO mind is constructive mathematics,
creating

Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Stephen P. King  

Many thanks, Stephan ! 

I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
of mind aren't afraid of using the word
subjectivity. 

Now all they have to do is find out  
who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/5/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 
Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 

--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Richard Ruquist 
Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism.
Richard


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 Many thanks, Stephan !

 I should have known it before, but
 double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
 of mind aren't afraid of using the word
 subjectivity.

 Now all they have to do is find out
 who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 10/5/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Richard Ruquist  

I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, 
and have other sources besides that. 

What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central 
mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living
matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
such a thing.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/5/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41 
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe 
dual aspect theory 


Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, 
I recommend the book 
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of 
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. 
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how 
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. 
Richard 


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 Many thanks, Stephan ! 
 
 I should have known it before, but 
 double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories 
 of mind aren't afraid of using the word 
 subjectivity. 
 
 Now all they have to do is find out 
 who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity ! 
 
 
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 10/5/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 
 
 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Stephen P. King 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20 
 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory 
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 
 
 -- 
 Onward! 
 
 Stephen 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 
 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread lennartn 
I recommend: Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter by
Terrence Deacon, a professor of neuroscience and anthropology at the
University of California, Berkeley

LN

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:33:53 -0400, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist  
 
 I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, 
 and have other sources besides that. 
 
 What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central 
 mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living
 matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
 such a thing.
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 10/5/2012  
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 
 
 
 - Receiving the following content -  
 From: Richard Ruquist  
 Receiver: everything-list  
 Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41 
 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
 discussingthe dual aspect theory
 
 
 Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality, 
 I recommend the book 
 Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of 
 Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas. 
 It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how 
 consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism. 
 Richard 
 
 
 On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King

 Many thanks, Stephan !

 I should have known it before, but
 double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
 of mind aren't afraid of using the word
 subjectivity.

 Now all they have to do is find out
 who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 10/5/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal 

Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that  
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.  
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.  
It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person  
indeterminacy.
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial  
derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.


Bruno


On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:15, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism.
Richard


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Many thanks, Stephan !

I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
of mind aren't afraid of using the word
subjectivity.

Now all they have to do is find out
who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Richard Ruquist

I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.

What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living
matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
such a thing.


Mind emerges from numbers (or from the combinators, etc.).

Matter emerge from mind.

Comp explains completely why it looks the contrary locally.

Comp might be false, but as matter emerges from mind in a precise way,  
comp (I survive through machine substitution at some level) is made  
refutable.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video  
discussingthe dual aspect theory



Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism.
Richard


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Many thanks, Stephan !

I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
of mind aren't afraid of using the word
subjectivity.

Now all they have to do is find out
who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that 
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. 
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. 
It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person 
indeterminacy.
It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial 
derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.


Bruno



 Hi Bruno,

Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, 
because comp, as currently formulated only understands the other 
aspect as a body problem. I disagree that they are unaware of 1p 
indeterminacy; they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind 
that has an infinite number of instances of a body. The non-trivial 
derivation is necessary for obvious reasons. If a fact is trivial, how 
does it have any reach to explain any relations beyond itself?
Conspiracy of numbers? Absolutely! But this is true in comp 
already. Consider Bpp; given the universe of propositions, how many are 
true and mutually non-contradictory?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 10/5/2012 12:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

Many thanks, Stephan !

I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
of mind aren't afraid of using the word
subjectivity.

Now all they have to do is find out
who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
10/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

--
Onward!

Stephen


From the video

Software of course, has no subjectivity

I dunno, when my computer crashes its synonymous to I have crashed 
when the error is displayed. So in a sense, it asserts and perceives 
its own crash, and if I can get to the log, I can see more 
specifically what might have gone wrong, since the system is so 
complex, that I can be pretty sure that no programmer predicted 
specifically this particular kind of crash + how to optimize things 
if/when possible after such.


Also, the video speaks of psilocin to make the argument that 
descriptions of neural activity are not their experience, as Craig 
might say.


Ironically enough, I would bet that the makers of this video have 
NEVER tried psilocin or related compounds, as they make a later 
statement in regards to subjectivity in animals One side of the 
correlation is unknowable, as the scientist cannot be the animal. 
This stands in direct opposition to subjective experience of 
DMT-related psychedelic experience, where it is relatively commonplace 
to find experiential reports of people communicating with plants, 
animals, and in the case of strong Ayahuasca dosages becoming the 
animal subjectively.


And the argument against that's just brain distortion/hallucination 
with no scientific usefulness is laid out, in a bit of a dated 
fashion, by Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby. He takes the position, 
that indigenous people in South America could not have amassed so many 
natural remedies and herbal cures (that big pharma has been exploiting 
so strongly, that every biologist is now suspected to be a bandit, 
re-drafting laws of sample taking and demonizing biologists from the 
west campaigns) without using DMT or some related plant-based compound 
to aid in finding cures.


He asks the reader how convincing it is that for hundreds of 
generations, the indigenous are finding these remedies out of the vast 
set of toxic and plants irrelevant to human purposes, by 
systematically applying trial and error? He offers other routes 
towards this knowledge and sees parallels between genetics, DNA, and 
indigenous descriptions of plant spirits to investigate how indigenous 
people find, out of millions of different plant species, exactly the 
right one, at the right dosage level, over and over again. Of course, 
there must be some trial and error + dying, but his list of precise 
hits is quite extensive. He suggests modestly, that the plants 
subjectivity is accessible through psilocin or DMT related 
experiences, or the indigenous people are just extremely lucky that 
their hallucinations line-up with so many effective herbs, roots etc.


But this isn't needed: my plants tell me the rhythm at which they need 
water, and if they're not doing to well, I can tell that subjectively, 
they're not doing that well. And as time passes I get better in 
interpreting WHY they are not feeling so well. I'm not so good a 
listener; but as a musician, I have to make noise, so my plants are 
patient, I hope. And you don't need psilocin to make these types of 
communication, but it would probably help :)


m



Hi Cowboy!

I have had first hand experience of altered states and I agree with 
your points here 100%. Roger's question remains in force: What is it 
that the subjectr of the subjective? I conjecture that it is the 
equivalent of a center of mass for the information/immaterial dual 
aspect of the body. This requires that there is something equivalent to 
the  necessary requirements of a fixed point: some kind of set, closure 
of that set, a transformation of the set and compactness. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorems_in_infinite-dimensional_spaces


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Richard Ruquist 
Deacon's 600 page book
(http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914)
flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book
(http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception).

I found a fairly complete summary of Deacon's book on how life emerges
from non-living matter. (Actually Deacon just presents a teleological
systems analysis of how that could happen). But regarding a
dual-aspect theory, here is a relevant paragraph from that summary
(http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/3/290/htm):

The Cartesian dualism that Deacon criticizes is substance dualism,
the notion that there are two kinds of substance of which the world is
constructed, namely physical substance (res extensa) and mental
substance (res cogitans), the latter of which in Descartes systems
includes God and soul. Deacon’s system is actually one of property
dualism in which there is just one kind of substance but there exist
two distinct kinds of properties, physical and biological the latter
of which also includes sentience and mind or in Deacon’s terminology
physical and ententional. Physical properties are described by
thermodynamics and morphodynamics whereas ententional properties are
described by teleodynamics, which in turn depend on morphodynamics and
thermodynamics.

Deacon's one kind of substance is physical substance. But it seems
that such a systems approach may be of value no matter (pun) what the
substance is or even if there is more than one kind of substance.
Deacon presents mechanisms that could be a guide for emergent
processes in living systems that could apply to physical matter or
even to monads or mind structures from numbers.
Richard

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Richard Ruquist

 I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
 and have other sources besides that.

 What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
 mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living
 matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
 such a thing.


 Mind emerges from numbers (or from the combinators, etc.).

 Matter emerge from mind.

 Comp explains completely why it looks the contrary locally.

 Comp might be false, but as matter emerges from mind in a precise way, comp
 (I survive through machine substitution at some level) is made refutable.

 Bruno






 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 10/5/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Richard Ruquist
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41
 Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
 discussingthe dual aspect theory


 Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
 I recommend the book
 Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
 Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
 It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
 consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be explained by materialism.
 Richard


 On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 Many thanks, Stephan !

 I should have known it before, but
 double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
 of mind aren't afraid of using the word
 subjectivity.

 Now all they have to do is find out
 who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 10/5/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Hi Stephen,

Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of
altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the elephant in
the room.

But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also be
your cup of tea, if you're not already familiar with it, and you permit
empty sets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHS7fy-HJxUfeature=relmfu

For PDFs:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjaved=0CCEQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0810.4339ei=NiVvUNOTJaKZ0QXl-ICwCAusg=AFQjCNGQqvmeh3wBbDPrSdZIDLHQ3U0wJwsig2=x8yxlI44JMU-T-4RwMTO-g

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDYQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.yale.edu%2Fpublications%2Ftechreports%2Ftr1419.pdfei=NiVvUNOTJaKZ0QXl-ICwCAusg=AFQjCNGDlbsWmV2EE6KMcr-L4mL2FMcw2Asig2=n2F1bfhQk3NTRk_cOL2S_gcad=rja

I think to Bruno, this would be too rich already.

Mark



On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:

  On 10/5/2012 12:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



 On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 Many thanks, Stephan !

 I should have known it before, but
 double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
 of mind aren't afraid of using the word
 subjectivity.

 Now all they have to do is find out
 who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !




 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 10/5/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-10-04, 09:14:20
 Subject: A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 From the video

 Software of course, has no subjectivity

 I dunno, when my computer crashes its synonymous to I have crashed when
 the error is displayed. So in a sense, it asserts and perceives its own
 crash, and if I can get to the log, I can see more specifically what might
 have gone wrong, since the system is so complex, that I can be pretty sure
 that no programmer predicted specifically this particular kind of crash +
 how to optimize things if/when possible after such.

 Also, the video speaks of psilocin to make the argument that descriptions
 of neural activity are not their experience, as Craig might say.

 Ironically enough, I would bet that the makers of this video have NEVER
 tried psilocin or related compounds, as they make a later statement in
 regards to subjectivity in animals One side of the correlation is
 unknowable, as the scientist cannot be the animal. This stands in direct
 opposition to subjective experience of DMT-related psychedelic experience,
 where it is relatively commonplace to find experiential reports of people
 communicating with plants, animals, and in the case of strong Ayahuasca
 dosages becoming the animal subjectively.

 And the argument against that's just brain distortion/hallucination with
 no scientific usefulness is laid out, in a bit of a dated fashion, by
 Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby. He takes the position, that indigenous
 people in South America could not have amassed so many natural remedies and
 herbal cures (that big pharma has been exploiting so strongly, that every
 biologist is now suspected to be a bandit, re-drafting laws of sample
 taking and demonizing biologists from the west campaigns) without using DMT
 or some related plant-based compound to aid in finding cures.

 He asks the reader how convincing it is that for hundreds of generations,
 the indigenous are finding these remedies out of the vast set of toxic and
 plants irrelevant to human purposes, by systematically applying trial and
 error? He offers other routes towards this knowledge and sees parallels
 between genetics, DNA, and indigenous descriptions of plant spirits to
 investigate how indigenous people find, out of millions of different plant
 species, exactly the right one, at the right dosage level, over and over
 again. Of course, there must be some trial and error + dying, but his list
 of precise hits is quite extensive. He suggests modestly, that the plants
 subjectivity is accessible through psilocin or DMT related experiences, or
 the indigenous people are just extremely lucky that their hallucinations
 line-up with so many effective herbs, roots etc.

 But this isn't needed: my plants tell me the rhythm at which they need
 water, and if they're not doing to well, I can tell that subjectively,
 they're not doing that well. And as time passes I get better in
 interpreting WHY they are not feeling so well. I'm not so good a listener;
 but as a musician, I have to make noise, so my plants are patient, I hope.
 And you don't need psilocin to make these types of communication, but it
 would probably help :)

 m



 Hi Cowboy!

 I have had first hand experience of altered states and I agree with
 your points here 100%. Roger's question remains

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 10/5/2012 2:22 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Deacon's 600 page book
(http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914)
flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book
(http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception).

I found a fairly complete summary of Deacon's book on how life emerges
from non-living matter. (Actually Deacon just presents a teleological
systems analysis of how that could happen). But regarding a
dual-aspect theory, here is a relevant paragraph from that summary
(http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/3/290/htm):

The Cartesian dualism that Deacon criticizes is substance dualism,
the notion that there are two kinds of substance of which the world is
constructed, namely physical substance (res extensa) and mental
substance (res cogitans), the latter of which in Descartes systems
includes God and soul. Deacon’s system is actually one of property
dualism in which there is just one kind of substance but there exist
two distinct kinds of properties, physical and biological the latter
of which also includes sentience and mind or in Deacon’s terminology
physical and ententional. Physical properties are described by
thermodynamics and morphodynamics whereas ententional properties are
described by teleodynamics, which in turn depend on morphodynamics and
thermodynamics.

Deacon's one kind of substance is physical substance. But it seems
that such a systems approach may be of value no matter (pun) what the
substance is or even if there is more than one kind of substance.
Deacon presents mechanisms that could be a guide for emergent
processes in living systems that could apply to physical matter or
even to monads or mind structures from numbers.
Richard



Hi Richard,

Nice post! I would only add that the emergence must not be a 
special singular event, it must be an ubiquitous process!


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 10/5/2012 2:41 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Hi Stephen,

Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of 
altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the 
elephant in the room.


But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also 
be your cup of tea, if you're not already familiar with it, and you 
permit empty sets:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHS7fy-HJxUfeature=relmfu


Hi Mark,

Non Well founded sets? Oh yeah! I have been signing their praises 
for a long time! I especially like all of Jon Barwise 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Barwise's work on them. It is exactly 
where we can formally model self-representation and allows for a nice 
finite model of the mereology of infinite sets (if we add a cut-off 
requirement).




For PDFs:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjaved=0CCEQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0810.4339ei=NiVvUNOTJaKZ0QXl-ICwCAusg=AFQjCNGQqvmeh3wBbDPrSdZIDLHQ3U0wJwsig2=x8yxlI44JMU-T-4RwMTO-g

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDYQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.yale.edu%2Fpublications%2Ftechreports%2Ftr1419.pdfei=NiVvUNOTJaKZ0QXl-ICwCAusg=AFQjCNGDlbsWmV2EE6KMcr-L4mL2FMcw2Asig2=n2F1bfhQk3NTRk_cOL2S_gcad=rja

I think to Bruno, this would be too rich already.

Mark

I am trying to get Bruno to see the importance of a cut-off but 
that would require that he admit that comp has an error in step 8. This 
error can be fixed by a weakening of universality but he wants nothing 
to do with this suggestion. :_(


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Russell Standish 
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist  
 
 I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced, 
 and have other sources besides that. 
 
 What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central 
 mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living
 matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
 such a thing.
 
 

I doubt there would be any one book on this. It is a field of great
interest, not only to biologists, but also ALife people, who are
approaching the problem from the opposite direction. Usually,
there will be a smattering of papers in ALife conferences dealing with
the abiogenisis problem. Most of the more recent ALife conference
proceedings are available outside of a paywall, so you could browse
these to see if any papers take your interest.

Cheers


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread meekerdb 

On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Richard Ruquist
  
  I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,

  and have other sources besides that.
  
  What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central

  mechanism of  abiogenesis, the production of living
  matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
  such a thing.


I suppose you've read the basics: Origins of Life by Freeman Dyson, The Origins of Life by 
John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Life's Origin ed. by William Schopf.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.