Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 18 Jan 2014, at 02:06, meekerdb wrote: On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? I think step 8 uses a false premise that one can anticipate all the counterfactual events. That premise is in the yes doctor. Or looked at another way, it implies that to show consciousness could be realized without physics requires creating a whole physics. That would only make the substitution level very low, or make comp false. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:01, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion of a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 of the UDA! In my thinking each and every observer has its own unique finite unique physical universe Why? (thus each 1p is unique and FPI follows from the inability to exactly compute some one elses 1p from yours. Unclear. See A.A. Markov's theorem of the computational intractability of the decision process of whether a pair of 4-manifolds are smooth diffeomorphic as a form of FPI argument.) Irrelevant. A real 3-p would be the intersection of infinitely many of 1p's of observers, it has vanishing or null content. 3p is easier than 1p. We can obtain all that we know as physics by the notion of what some mutually consistent 1p have in common. (Thus a substitution level obtains automatically.) How. Give an example. If a pair of observers Definition? are such that their 1p's cannot be consistently combined, then they cannot be said to interact or communicate. Why? I start my reasoning with infinitely many observers, not one. It makes a difference in our respective thinking. ? Arithmetic and the UD* contains infinitely many observers. Your result that there cannot exist a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 is correct, but you are misinterpreting what this means, IMHO. One should not assume an absolute, Laplacean or Platonic version of a physical universe can exist Sure. That's part of the result. since such would be completely separated from observers and measurements Why? and thus not have any particular definite properties! At most it would have all possible properties which sums to a null set, as Russell Standish argued in A theory of Nothing. Unclear. We do not need to assume any kind of primitive physical world that exist independent of observer, as you point out in Step 8. It is not that we don't need it, but that we cannot use it. Primitive Matter is shown being empty of any explanative power, even in physics. We can obtain physical worlds or realities by considering the commonalities and mutual consistent descriptions of many observers (that can be distinguished by observers in the reality. Again, I am using your definition of an observer. Observers generate worlds by their participation with each other. Worlds support and implement computations. Computations generate new observers. The circle does not close unless there is no measure of change (time). It is a cycle, like a helix, eternally evolving and flowing, not a vicious circle. You cannot invalidate a reasoning by working in another theory. You like comp, but continue to assume many things incompatible with it. Bruno I have to go now. I might answer other posts later. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? Bruno Brent It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you actually disagree with? -- You received
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Dear Bruno, Could you ever stop being obtuse? On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:01, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion of a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 of the UDA! In my thinking each and every observer has its own unique finite unique physical universe Why? (thus each 1p is unique and FPI follows from the inability to exactly compute some one elses 1p from yours. Unclear. See A.A. Markov's theorem of the computational intractability of the decision process of whether a pair of 4-manifolds are smooth diffeomorphic as a form of FPI argument.) Irrelevant. A real 3-p would be the intersection of infinitely many of 1p's of observers, it has vanishing or null content. 3p is easier than 1p. We can obtain all that we know as physics by the notion of what some mutually consistent 1p have in common. (Thus a substitution level obtains automatically.) How. Give an example. If a pair of observers Definition? are such that their 1p's cannot be consistently combined, then they cannot be said to interact or communicate. Why? I start my reasoning with infinitely many observers, not one. It makes a difference in our respective thinking. ? Arithmetic and the UD* contains infinitely many observers. Your result that there cannot exist a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 is correct, but you are misinterpreting what this means, IMHO. One should not assume an absolute, Laplacean or Platonic version of a physical universe can exist Sure. That's part of the result. since such would be completely separated from observers and measurements Why? and thus not have any particular definite properties! At most it would have all possible properties which sums to a null set, as Russell Standish argued in A theory of Nothing. Unclear. We do not need to assume any kind of primitive physical world that exist independent of observer, as you point out in Step 8. It is not that we don't need it, but that we cannot use it. Primitive Matter is shown being empty of any explanative power, even in physics. We can obtain physical worlds or realities by considering the commonalities and mutual consistent descriptions of many observers (that can be distinguished by observers in the reality. Again, I am using your definition of an observer. *Observers generate worlds by their participation with each other. Worlds support and implement computations. Computations generate new observers.* The circle does not close unless there is no measure of change (time). It is a cycle, like a helix, eternally evolving and flowing, not a vicious circle. You cannot invalidate a reasoning by working in another theory. You like comp, but continue to assume many things incompatible with it. Bruno I have to go now. I might answer other posts later. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? Bruno Brent It may be a problem that I'm not producing a
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 19 January 2014 05:26, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Bruno, Could you ever stop being obtuse? Dear Stephen, Please don't start sounding like Edgar... Please don't imply that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Dear LizR, I know. I deserved that. It is just frustrating to explain something and get a blank look in response. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 January 2014 05:26, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Bruno, Could you ever stop being obtuse? Dear Stephen, Please don't start sounding like Edgar... Please don't imply that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 19 January 2014 11:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, I know. I deserved that. It is just frustrating to explain something and get a blank look in response. Do you have any teenage kids?!? :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Yes, and friends that are teenagers in mental age. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 January 2014 11:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, I know. I deserved that. It is just frustrating to explain something and get a blank look in response. Do you have any teenage kids?!? :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 17 Jan 2014, at 00:01, John Mikes wrote: ...just take the 'infinite' seriously. That's a wise suggestion. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 17 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 02:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. Perhaps it is misleading to say that I am the dumb matter if my consciousness is not necessarily attached to any particular matter. Yes. You own it, really. If computationalism, or even your functionalism, is correct, it makes sense to believe that some day, you can own more than one body (in the unique first person reality, or in the same Everett branch), like having eight special bodies well adapted to the physical exploration of the planets of the solar system, and one more for the ring of Saturn, where legs are so embarrassing. Bruno so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Dear Bruno, There is a movie Surrogateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates_(film), that involves the ability to rest a body in far away locations or for specific events/jobs/dates, just as we would rest a car. You might enjoy it. I did. :-) On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 02:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. Perhaps it is misleading to say that I am the dumb matter if my consciousness is not necessarily attached to any particular matter. Yes. You own it, really. If computationalism, or even your functionalism, is correct, it makes sense to believe that some day, you can own more than one body (in the unique first person reality, or in the same Everett branch), like having eight special bodies well adapted to the physical exploration of the planets of the solar system, and one more for the ring of Saturn, where legs are so embarrassing. Bruno so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/ she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? Bruno Brent It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you actually disagree with? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Dear Bruno, I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion of a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 of the UDA! In my thinking each and every observer has its own unique finite unique physical universe (thus each 1p is unique and FPI follows from the inability to exactly compute some one elses 1p from yours. See A.A. Markov's theorem of the computational intractability of the decision process of whether a pair of 4-manifolds are smooth diffeomorphic as a form of FPI argument.) A real 3-p would be the intersection of infinitely many of 1p's of observers, it has vanishing or null content. We can obtain all that we know as physics by the notion of what some mutually consistent 1p have in common. (Thus a substitution level obtains automatically.) If a pair of observers are such that their 1p's cannot be consistently combined, then they cannot be said to interact or communicate. I start my reasoning with infinitely many observers, not one. It makes a difference in our respective thinking. Your result that there cannot exist a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 is correct, but you are misinterpreting what this means, IMHO. One should not assume an absolute, Laplacean or Platonic version of a physical universe can exist since such would be completely separated from observers and measurements and thus not have any particular definite properties! At most it would have all possible properties which sums to a null set, as Russell Standish argued in A theory of Nothing. We do not need to assume any kind of primitive physical world that exist independent of observer, as you point out in Step 8. We can obtain physical worlds or realities by considering the commonalities and mutual consistent descriptions of many observers (that can be distinguished by observers in the reality. Again, I am using your definition of an observer. *Observers generate worlds by their participation with each other. Worlds support and implement computations. Computations generate new observers.* The circle does not close unless there is no measure of change (time). It is a cycle, like a helix, eternally evolving and flowing, not a vicious circle. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? Bruno Brent It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you actually disagree with? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? I think step 8 uses a false premise that one can anticipate all the counterfactual events. Or looked at another way, it implies that to show consciousness could be realized without physics requires creating a whole physics. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Hi Brent, I think step 8 uses a false premise that one can anticipate all the counterfactual events. Or looked at another way, it implies that to show consciousness could be realized without physics requires creating a whole physics. I could not say better myself! Bravo! On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain qua computatio, the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic. the speculative covers only the yes doctor, and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis). Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations. The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing. Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring? I think step 8 uses a false premise that one can anticipate all the counterfactual events. Or looked at another way, it implies that to show consciousness could be realized without physics requires creating a whole physics. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:09, John Mikes wrote: Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making them fundamental to my developing agnosticism. Brent, to your short closing remark: I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain, pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value structure more than just material functioning. And I wish I had such (your?) alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it. I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called science of consciousness. What I would have added is a date of yesterday (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier (millennia?) similar concoctions) . And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all. Well: what - IS - the LAW OF NATURE as widely believed? It is the majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory). (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings) It depends on the boundaries WE CHOSE. Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. From what I understand, Colin's try to introduce in the exact sciences the lack of rigor of the human sciences. I believe in the contrary: we must come back to rigor in the human and fundamental science. I don't see at all how Colin's approach can be consistent with the correct-machine, and human, fundamental agnosticism. Bruno Thank you, Colins (and Brent) John Mikes On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Liz: the first that came to mind was Edgar's isn't it obvious'? but I did not want to make fun of him. Of you: maybe. How do you expect me to give you examples from BEYOND our knowable circumstances to illustrate what is beyond our knowable? Physix works with the boundaries of our present knowledge, its laws are within. I am tired to dig up my retired computer to (maybe) find Paul Churchland's example (from before his marriage) of a 'tribe' with different physics (the first that came to mind). Then there are the books about the Zarathustrans, (Collins-Stewart?) Figment of Reality - I am tired to look up now. Maybe if I survive my 92th in some days and relax I will respond in more detail. But I have my own explanations as well...just take the 'infinite' seriously. John On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or give an example.? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Bruno, as I recall my recollection of Colin was an oldie one from his young-age ideas. Many many years ago. John On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:09, John Mikes wrote: Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making them fundamental to my developing agnosticism. Brent, to your short closing remark: I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain, pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value structure more than just material functioning. And I wish I had such (your?) alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it. I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called science of consciousness. What I would have added is a date of yesterday (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier (millennia?) similar concoctions) . And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all. Well: what *- IS -* the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory). (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings) It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. From what I understand, Colin's try to introduce in the exact sciences the lack of rigor of the human sciences. I believe in the contrary: we must come back to rigor in the human and fundamental science. I don't see at all how Colin's approach can be consistent with the correct-machine, and human, fundamental agnosticism. Bruno Thank you, Colins (and Brent) John Mikes On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 17 January 2014 12:01, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: the first that came to mind was Edgar's isn't it obvious'? but I did not want to make fun of him. Perish the thought. Of you: maybe. How do you expect me to give you examples from BEYOND our knowable circumstances to illustrate what is beyond our knowable? Physix works with the boundaries of our present knowledge, its laws are within. I am tired to dig up my retired computer to (maybe) find Paul Churchland's example (from before his marriage) of a 'tribe' with different physics (the first that came to mind). Then there are the books about the Zarathustrans, (Collins-Stewart?) Figment of Reality - I am tired to look up now. Maybe if I survive my 92th in some days and relax I will respond in more detail. But I have my own explanations as well...just take the 'infinite' seriously. Sorry! I didn't intend to ask the unaskable - but I think that by answering by not answering, you have in fact answered me! Maybe there are indeed more things in Heaven and Earth and maybe we do see everything through our-particular-reality coloured spectacles... But I too am too tired, even though it is only just after midday here in New Zealand (I didn't sleep very well), so I will leave it at that for now. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 13 January 2014 00:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? Water is just dumb matter arranged in a special way. Why not just drink chlorine instead? Liquid is liquid. You could turn chlorine into water by rearranging the subatomic particles. You have argued that it is not possible to create a living cell by arranging atoms. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 13 January 2014 02:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. Perhaps it is misleading to say that I am the dumb matter if my consciousness is not necessarily attached to any particular matter. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you actually disagree with? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic. Brent It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you actually disagree with? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making them fundamental to my developing agnosticism. Brent, to your short closing remark: I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain, pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value structure more than just material functioning. And I wish I had such (your?) alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it. I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called science of consciousness. What I would have added is a date of yesterday (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier (millennia?) similar concoctions) . And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all. Well: what *- IS -* the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory). (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings) It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. Thank you, Colins (and Brent) John Mikes On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or give an example.? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. --—John von Neumann How does one know which mathematical construct to try out, to see if it will work? Surely interpretation becomes necessary at some point. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline- wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” That's observation theory, not consciousness theories. · trying to explain observing with observations Of course you need logic, ans some assumption on the mind (like computationalism assume mind to be invariant for Turing simulation). · trying to explain experience with experiences Well, at some level, we can't avoid that, but the experience are extended into testable theories. · trying to explain how scientists do science. In some theoretical frame. yes, meta-science can be handled scientifically (= modestly). · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. You overgeneralize. That is the case of physics, but not of meta- mathematics in the comp frame. I recall to you that computationalism is incompatible with physicalism. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... That's partly wrong, partly correct. · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. ? That's fuzzy, and false, as far as I can interpret it precisely. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. That's false in Everett QM, and in computationalism. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. Many does evidence the subjectivity. especially on this list. You are a bit unfair. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. Well, that's exactly the kind of Aristotelianism that computationalism refutes. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, The physical universe? I am agnostic on this, if only because that is what we need to explain once we assume the brain Tring emulable at some level. made of whatever it is made of, Yes, matter is not made of matter. That's the comp point. getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. Yes, that is what comp makes into a theorem. We agreed on this already in previous post. You should send your comment to more physicalist forum. yet you still seem to assume a physical reality, ad so are not yet cured of Aristotelian theology, apparently. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. Wich stuff? These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Science is just a matter of modesty and clarity. And yes, in the mind science, the human emotions drives us still a lot, and people get unscientific. the problem is not science, it is our tolerance for the lack of rigor in theology (efven more so in the theologuy of the atheist scientists (a contradiction in term). Science must be agnostic, even religion has to be, if comp is true. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. It looks like you are still confusing computationalism and physicalism. But there are opposed. if comp is correct, the theology has to be platonist. The physical universe is not made of things, but is an appearance from inside arithmetic. Happy new year! Happy new year Colin. You preach a choir here, but amazingly seems to still believe in a primitive universe, making your point eventually seeming contradictory. Bruno Cheers, Colin (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet). phew rant
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? Water is just dumb matter arranged in a special way. Why not just drink chlorine instead? Liquid is liquid. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” That's observation theory, not consciousness theories. Observation is part of consciousness. Without consciousness there is no observation. · trying to explain observing with observations Of course you need logic, ans some assumption on the mind (like computationalism assume mind to be invariant for Turing simulation). Since observation is part of consciousness, he is pointing out that trying to explain consciousness without recognizing that all evidence of it comes from consciousness is circular reasoning. Whether or not we need assumptions for our theories is not relevant to the ontology of consciousness. · trying to explain experience with experiences Well, at some level, we can't avoid that, but the experience are extended into testable theories. Tests and theories are experiences. · trying to explain how scientists do science. In some theoretical frame. yes, meta-science can be handled scientifically (= modestly). But consciousness ≠ modesty or science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. You overgeneralize. That is the case of physics, but not of meta-mathematics in the comp frame. I recall to you that computationalism is incompatible with physicalism. Why is meta-mathematics in comp more explanatory? · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... That's partly wrong, partly correct. That's partly information about an opinion, mostly cryptic. · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. ? That's fuzzy, and false, as far as I can interpret it precisely. It's supposed to be false. He's giving another example of how scientific approaches to consciousness beg the question and deceive themselves. It means precisely that in reality there are many, many tools within science and reason, but the contemporary approaches consolidate science into a single dogmatic ideology. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. That's false in Everett QM, and in computationalism. They still do not contain scientists, only toy models of the footprint that first person interaction imposes on 3p functions. Craig span class=Apple-style-span style=border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-varia ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline- wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” That's observation theory, not consciousness theories. Observation is part of consciousness. Without consciousness there is no observation. It depends on what you mean by observation. For many purposes, observation can be only an interaction. that is enough to explain the wave collapse appearance from the SWE. Now, observation can also be defined in a stringer sense involving consciousness, I can agree. Yet, this does not permit a direct identification of consciousness theory with observation theory. · trying to explain observing with observations Of course you need logic, ans some assumption on the mind (like computationalism assume mind to be invariant for Turing simulation). Since observation is part of consciousness, OK, for some sense of observation. But there are many use of observation which do not require consciousness. he is pointing out that trying to explain consciousness without recognizing that all evidence of it comes from consciousness is circular reasoning. But nobody tries to negate that! Obviously consciousness requires consciousness to be part of the evidence. The same occurs for matter. But from this you cannot conclude that consciousness or matter have to be primitively assumed in the theory. That would be circular. Whether or not we need assumptions for our theories is not relevant to the ontology of consciousness. ? · trying to explain experience with experiences Well, at some level, we can't avoid that, but the experience are extended into testable theories. Tests and theories are experiences. You confuse a theory, with the experience of a theory. · trying to explain how scientists do science. In some theoretical frame. yes, meta-science can be handled scientifically (= modestly). But consciousness ≠ modesty or science. Sure. Nobody said that. A theory of consciousness does not need to be conscious. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. You overgeneralize. That is the case of physics, but not of meta- mathematics in the comp frame. I recall to you that computationalism is incompatible with physicalism. Why is meta-mathematics in comp more explanatory? Meta-mathematics explains how machine can be aware (in some variate senses) of their own limitations, in both the ability to justify some guess, and to express some lived experience. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... That's partly wrong, partly correct. That's partly information about an opinion, mostly cryptic. It was correct, because consciousness does not tell anything per se about the reality, except for itself. It was not correct, because a *theory* of consciousness can have verifiable aspects, and so, if they are refuted we *might* learn something about reality, in some local revisable way. · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. ? That's fuzzy, and false, as far as I can interpret it precisely. It's supposed to be false. He's giving another example of how scientific approaches to consciousness beg the question and deceive themselves. I understood that. I was agreeing with Colin. It means precisely that in reality there are many, many tools within science and reason, but the contemporary approaches consolidate science into a single dogmatic ideology. This is a bit frstrating when you read the authors and see that their opinions is quite variate and variable. Wjat is true, is that most of them adopt, not always consciously, the theology of Aristotle, with the belief in Nature and things like that, which gives terms which are too much fuzzy for the fundamental questioning. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. That's false in Everett QM, and in computationalism. They still do not contain scientists, only toy models of the footprint that first person interaction imposes on 3p functions. Not at all. In the Everett universal
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable for quantum computation, because of the temperature being to high for qc to occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum effects which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers involving the quantum and plants)? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 10:23 am Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. This is close to Monadology where the monads all perceive each other, and particularly perceive living beings as statistical relative numbers, but mainly perceiving and identifying them (and themselves) with a whole person. Richard What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 12 Jan 2014, at 17:26, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable for quantum computation, Good remark. His consciousness paper seems to contradict his paper on the brain being classical. because of the temperature being to high for qc to occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum effects which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers involving the quantum and plants)? I don't know. That nature exploits the quantum is trivial. That plants exploits quantum *weirdness* is less trivial, and seems possible to be inferred from some work on photosynthesis. Then we really don't know if nature go beyond that. The pineal gland is not completely grey, but is still very hot for QC or Q weirdness exploitations, unless we speculate on some unknown ways used by nature to harness quantum information. That might be clarified in the future. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 10:23 am Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so- called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Yes photosynthesis uses, I read, quantum processing in the tropics. Birds are alleged to navigate that way, I seem to remember reading. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable for quantum computation, because of the temperature being to high for qc to occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum effects which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers involving the quantum and plants)? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 10:23 am Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Why are we not more interested in the special arrangements? On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? Water is just dumb matter arranged in a special way. Why not just drink chlorine instead? Liquid is liquid. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Tegmark has painted himself into a corner on the subject of high temperature quantum coherence. The problem is the neglect of the role that structure (special arrangement) can play. For example check out metamaterials whose properties mostly come from the special arrangement. Tegmark treats the brain as a homogeneous lump of matter. No wonder... I would not consider his arguments credible given resent findings on photosynthesis and q-coherence. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable for quantum computation, because of the temperature being to high for qc to occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum effects which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers involving the quantum and plants)? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 10:23 am Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our lump of dumb matter every n number of years. so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. Telmo. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:43:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” That's observation theory, not consciousness theories. Observation is part of consciousness. Without consciousness there is no observation. It depends on what you mean by observation. For many purposes, observation can be only an interaction. Nothing can interact without consciousness either. that is enough to explain the wave collapse appearance from the SWE. Now, observation can also be defined in a stringer sense involving consciousness, I can agree. Yet, this does not permit a direct identification of consciousness theory with observation theory. It does if we question what observation really is other than consciousness. · trying to explain observing with observations Of course you need logic, ans some assumption on the mind (like computationalism assume mind to be invariant for Turing simulation). Since observation is part of consciousness, OK, for some sense of observation. But there are many use of observation which do not require consciousness. Those uses are metaphorical. There can be no literal observation, detection, signaling, i/o etc of any kind without a sensory-motive capacity. The only legitimate confusion in my mind is that it is not necessarily intuitive to realize that low level types of sensation do not necessarily scale up to higher levels - it is higher levels which can be masked and throttled to appear low. he is pointing out that trying to explain consciousness without recognizing that all evidence of it comes from consciousness is circular reasoning. But nobody tries to negate that! Obviously consciousness requires consciousness to be part of the evidence. Not if you invent types of unconscious observation. The same occurs for matter. But from this you cannot conclude that consciousness or matter have to be primitively assumed in the theory. That would be circular. I don't see anything circular about assuming that awareness is primitive. Whether or not we need assumptions for our theories is not relevant to the ontology of consciousness. ? Reality doesn't have to be convenient for our theoretical expectations. · trying to explain experience with experiences Well, at some level, we can't avoid that, but the experience are extended into testable theories. Tests and theories are experiences. You confuse a theory, with the experience of a theory. You confuse a theory with the non-experience of a theory. · trying to explain how scientists do science. In some theoretical frame. yes, meta-science can be handled scientifically (= modestly). But consciousness ≠ modesty or science. Sure. Nobody said that. A theory of consciousness does not need to be conscious. A theory of consciousness needs to reflect the actual nature of consciousness, not the nature of theory. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. You overgeneralize. That is the case of physics, but not of meta-mathematics in the comp frame. I recall to you that computationalism is incompatible with physicalism. Why is meta-mathematics in comp more explanatory? Meta-mathematics explains how machine can be aware (in some variate senses) of their own limitations, in both the ability to justify some guess, and to express some lived experience. But that doesn't explain experience, only that given experience and beliefs, mathematics can model the dynamics of trivial self reference. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... That's partly wrong, partly correct. That's partly information about an opinion, mostly cryptic. It was correct, because consciousness does not tell anything per se about the reality, except for itself. Reality is an expectation within consciousness. There can be contact with any reality other than what consciousness presents directly or indirectly. It was not correct, because a *theory* of
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 1/12/2014 12:55 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. --—John von Neumann How does one know which mathematical construct to try out, to see if it will work? Surely interpretation becomes necessary at some point. Von Neumann recognizes above that some interpretation is necessary for the application of mathematics, the addition of certain verbal interpretations. Which mathematics to try may be suggested by the interpretation of some earlier theories, which is what I see as useful about metaphysics - it may suggest improved physics. But the interesting thing about this quote, which I think is generally overlooked, is that even those theories/models we think of a providing good explanations only seem that way because of familiarity. We think easily of gravity as explaining the orbit of the Moon. But in the 17th century it prompted the question, But what is pushing on the Moon to provide the force? Now we say there is no force, it's just a distortion of space, so the Moon is just going in a straight line. So the observable facts stay the same, the predictions become a little more accurate, but the ontological explanation varies drastically. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Dear Brent and LizR, Could it be that we are really discussing the Word Problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_problem_for_groups Note the relation to computations, via the use of recursively enumerable sets! A pair of words, as defined in the Wiki article, could represent the content of a pair of observers (each defined per Bruno's theoretical construction as the intersection of an infinity of computations). On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 2:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2014 12:55 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. --—John von Neumann How does one know which mathematical construct to try out, to see if it will work? Surely interpretation becomes necessary at some point. Von Neumann recognizes above that some interpretation is necessary for the application of mathematics, the addition of certain verbal interpretations. Which mathematics to try may be suggested by the interpretation of some earlier theories, which is what I see as useful about metaphysics - it may suggest improved physics. But the interesting thing about this quote, which I think is generally overlooked, is that even those theories/models we think of a providing good explanations only seem that way because of familiarity. We think easily of gravity as explaining the orbit of the Moon. But in the 17th century it prompted the question, But what is pushing on the Moon to provide the force? Now we say there is no force, it's just a distortion of space, so the Moon is just going in a straight line. So the observable facts stay the same, the predictions become a little more accurate, but the ontological explanation varies drastically. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Tegmark and consciousness
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, 12 January 2014 5:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 1/11/2014 8:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it's a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can't they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called science of consciousness is * the the science of the scientific observer * trying to explain observing with observations * trying to explain experience with experiences * trying to explain how scientists do science. * a science of scientific behaviour. * Descriptive and never explanatory. The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. ---John von Neumann This is what scientists do (perfectly fine procedural/behaviour) but this becomes This is all scientists can do when? Says who? Von-freaking Neumann? He has no clue that what he declares science to be is not a 'law of nature' and must fail to predict or explain _him_ and his ability to be ignorant of what the full nature of scientific behaviour entails or how he can observe anything at all. To think the von-neumann paragraph is all there is to science, is to fail to contact the real problem: the presupposition that von-Neumann's dictum is all there is to science/scientific behaviour. Un-argued. Un-documented. Untrained. Tacit presupposition learned by imitation. Section 6.3 in my book nails von-neumann's blinkered view to the great wall of trophies dedicated to that view. His view was king in a simpler world: it worksin all places except one. Now we attack that very 'one'and we fail because of that very presupposition... and we cite bloody von-neumann at everyone so we continue to fail, thereby embedding failure at a cultural level. This garbage has to stop. Time for change. 2014. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Tegmark and consciousness
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it's a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can't they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called science of consciousness is * the the science of the scientific observer * trying to explain observing with observations * trying to explain experience with experiences * trying to explain how scientists do science. * a science of scientific behaviour. * Descriptive and never explanatory. * Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm 'laws of nature' contacts the actual underlying reality... * Assuming there's only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. * Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. * Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn't evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. * Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new 'state of matter'? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer 'sees it looking like'. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can't deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don't even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it'll be out within 6 months. That'll sort them out. Happy new year! Cheers, Colin (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet). phew rant over, feel better now -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:12:46 PM UTC-5, ColinHales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. Exactly. It would be interesting to see a study that focuses on why some people can't seem to understand the blindspot. That will tell us more about consciousness than any mathematical or physical principle. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _*for*_ science. The problem is _*science itself*_ ... _*us*_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! Cheers, Colin (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet). phew rant over, feel better now -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_ ... _us_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
Phlogiston!!! Nice to hear from you, Colin! :-) On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called “science of consciousness” is · the “the science of the scientific observer” · trying to explain observing with observations · trying to explain experience with experiences · trying to explain how scientists do science. · a science of scientific behaviour. · Descriptive and never explanatory. · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws of nature’ contacts the actual underlying reality... · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever questioning that. · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything. · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified phenomena. 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presuppositionnow gives us exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state of matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the point of view of being a bit of it.. g. The big mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking like’. The next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the universe is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first place. These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the problem is. The problem is not one _*for*_ science. The problem is _*science itself*_ ... _*us*_. Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them out. Happy new year! Cheers, Colin (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet). phew rant over, feel better now -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 1/11/2014 8:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it's a long way from physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it is. Can't they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called science of consciousness is 暗he the science of the scientific observer 暗rying to explain observing with observations 暗rying to explain experience with experiences 暗rying to explain how scientists do science. 戢 science of scientific behaviour. 嵯escriptive and never explanatory. The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. -John von Neumann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
