Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
On 08 Oct 2012, at 21:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Bruno: It could be that the indeterminacy in the I means that everything else is not a machine, but supposedly, an hallucination. If reified as real, which the machine is obliged to do. But this hallucination has a well defined set of mathematical properties that are communicable to other hallucinated expectators. The hallucination has communicable components, and in the case of physics, sharable one. Like second-life video game, except that its roots are more solid as they rely on arithmetic directly. (No bug at that level). This means that something is keeping the picture coherent. Yes. The laws of arithmetic (or the laws of your favorite UM: it does not matter which one, as that would change only superficially the ontology, but not what is really real, which is epistemological (physics is first person plural epistemology with comp, as I argue at least). If that something is not computation or computations, what is the nature of this well behaving hallucination according with your point of view? Computation = Sigma_1 truth. But from inside the machine are confronted to all Sigma_i truth, with oracles, and even beyond. The nature of the well behaving hallucination is truth, the whole arithmetical truth (and beyond, as we can't know that comp is true, and that plays some role). Bruno 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality. Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip! do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can know relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the rest is the external and internal math structures in arithmetic. which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?. Arithmetic gives the submerged part. The UD complete execution gives it too. The emerged part is given by the first person indeterminacy. Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not realize it) Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs a God (arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical truth as we usually defined it (it is only an approximation). By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing a computational
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
Bruno: It could be that the indeterminacy in the I means that everything else is not a machine, but supposedly, an hallucination. But this hallucination has a well defined set of mathematical properties that are communicable to other hallucinated expectators. This means that something is keeping the picture coherent. If that something is not computation or computations, what is the nature of this well behaving hallucination according with your point of view? 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality. Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip! do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can know relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the rest is the external and internal math structures in arithmetic. which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?. Arithmetic gives the submerged part. The UD complete execution gives it too. The emerged part is given by the first person indeterminacy. Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not realize it) Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs a God (arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical truth as we usually defined it (it is only an approximation). By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing a computational theory of ultimate reality. Not at all. many are confuse about this. This is the confusion between comp and digital physics. Comp is just the bet that I am a machine. Not that reality is computational. Comp makes reality ultra-non-computational, like arithmetical truth is already ultra-non-computational. The computational = Sigma_1 complete. Above it is not computational, and arithmetical truth is the union of all sigma_i (Sigma_0 U Sigma_1 Sigma_3 U Sigma_4 U Sigma_5 U Sigma_6 U Sigma_7 U ...). Digital physics, although perhaps useful, is contradictory at the start, as it implies comp, but if you get the UDA, you can understand that comp entails non digital physics. By transitivity, this shows that Digital physics entails non-digital physics, and so digital physics is refuted (with or without comp). I try to demolish it from above, by proposing that perceptions are the effect of computation in living beings for survival . OK.
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in time since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy, the mind would make use of another mathematical structure with a relation of order. Alberto 2012/10/6 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm Kant's Copernican Revolution Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his Copernican Revolution, that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious: the mind could be a tabula rasa, a blank tablet, no more than a bathtub full of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be noise -- less even than a dream or nothing to us, as Kant alternatively puts it. . Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 10:42:30 Subject: Re: A grand hypothesis about order, life, and consciousness On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order out of chaos *. Since at least higher living beings also possess consciousness, my grand hypothesis is that life = consciousness = awareness = producing order out of chaos. I agree Roger. I would add to this understanding however, a logarithmic sense of increasing quality of experience. human experience = consciousness animal experience = awareness microbiotic experience = sensation inorganic experience = persistence of functions and structures. I would not say producing order out of chaos because I think that chaos is not primordial. Nonsense is a mismatch or attenuation of sense, not the other way around. Order cannot be produced from chaos unless chaos implicitly contains the potential for order...which makes the production of orderly appearance really just a formality. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y5Z0qwWOARAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and
evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert
that this is true.
Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and
psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the
comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak
materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*).
The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is
crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of
perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible,
mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way,
according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire
universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not
know if we live in such a small brane).
OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at
least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the
neoplatonists already did.
I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the
ultimate nature or reality
Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the
comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be
enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory
can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to
capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible,
string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like
new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia.
Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the
mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of
duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic
structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) .
Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind
and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture
is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality.
Eventually matter emerge from dreams coherence conditions. Dreams are
just the first person view on the relevant computations which exists
by elementary arithmetic.
For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in
time since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy,
the mind would make use of another mathematical structure with a
relation of order.
I agree, and N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... } is quite enough, at least
with the addition and multiplication laws. You can define the order by
the order relation x y, that you can define for example by Ez(x + z
= y ~(z = 0)). That order is enough to define the order of the
computational steps in any computations.
With computationalism, physics is *literally* entirely reducible to
computer science (= number theory or combinator theory), in a sense
similar to the fact that current biology is literally reducible to
chemistry, itself reducible to physics. Note that computer science
refers to number crunching and syntactical manipulations, but also to
the many semantics of programs and computations, like Scott
denotational semantics, or like those derived from mathematical logic
(self-reference theory, model theory, Curry-Howard isomorphism, etc.).
Here, the use of self-reference makes it possible to explain the
*whole* of physics: that is the quanta *and* the qualia together, and
why they seems (and are) different. All universal numbers, when
looking inward, find that same universal qualia-quanta distinctions.
Note this makes comp testable, as you can compare the quanta behavior
found by machine introspection with what we can observe, and in that
sense, we can say that QM-without-collapse is quite an ally, up to
now, to the comp postulate. Newton physics, once assessed, would have
violate the comp theory.
Bruno
(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
2012/10/6 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm
Kant's Copernican Revolution
Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his Copernican
Revolution,
that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object
possible
rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This
introduced
the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than
just a passive
recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious: the
mind could
be a tabula rasa, a blank tablet, no more than a bathtub full of
silicon chips
could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed,
i.e. recognized,
or it would just be noise -- less even than a dream or nothing to
us, as Kant
alternatively puts it.
.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary
psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true.
Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology
still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular
mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be
shown contradictory(*).
The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is
crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions
and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the
laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also
dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the
planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane).
OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at
least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the
neoplatonists already did.
I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate
nature or reality
Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp
frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough.
Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe
completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of
what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano
Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only
more mess in Platonia.
Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind
along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in
category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as
Stephen told me and he can explain you) .
Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and
matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more
that matter is an iceberg tip of reality.
Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? do
we can know about it this submerged computational nature? which phenomena
produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?.
Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this
is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What
the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be
you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not
realize it)
By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing
a computational theory of ultimate reality. I try to demolish it from
above, by proposing that perceptions are the effect of computation in
living beings for survival . I assume, and I make use of it, that the comp
hypothesis can also be applied at a level above phisical reality instead of
below: a substitution at the axon firing level could be used to substitute
a part of the brain by computer chips (by making the chips to inject axonic
signals) + perhaps some hormonal control. This substitution level
Matrix-style can produce the same first person indeterminacy and still the
computation is made within this reality, by real computers made of ordinary
matter.
This is enough for a discussion.
Eventually matter emerge from dreams coherence conditions. Dreams are just
the first person view on the relevant computations which exists by
elementary arithmetic.
For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in time
since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy, the mind
would make use of another mathematical structure with a relation of order.
I agree, and N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... } is quite enough, at least with
the addition and multiplication laws. You can define the order by the order
relation x y, that you can define for example by Ez(x + z = y ~(z =
0)). That order is enough to define the order of the computational steps in
any computations.
With computationalism, physics is *literally* entirely reducible to
computer science (= number theory or combinator theory), in a sense similar
to the fact that current biology is literally reducible to chemistry,
itself reducible to physics. Note that computer science refers to number
crunching and syntactical manipulations, but also to the many semantics of
programs and computations, like Scott denotational semantics, or like those
derived from mathematical logic (self-reference theory, model theory,
Curry-Howard isomorphism, etc.).
Here, the use of self-reference makes it possible to explain the *whole*
of physics: that is the quanta *and* the qualia together, and why they
seems (and are) different. All universal numbers, when looking inward, find
that same universal qualia-quanta distinctions. Note this makes comp
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
With by real computers made of ordinary matter. I mean that the
computers are structures within the mathematical manifold that describe the
physical reality (or the tip of the iceberg).
2012/10/7 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary
psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true.
Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology
still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular
mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be
shown contradictory(*).
The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is
crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions
and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the
laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also
dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the
planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane).
OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at
least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the
neoplatonists already did.
I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate
nature or reality
Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp
frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough.
Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe
completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of
what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano
Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only
more mess in Platonia.
Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind
along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in
category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as
Stephen told me and he can explain you) .
Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and
matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more
that matter is an iceberg tip of reality.
Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter?
do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? which
phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we
perceive?. Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs,
but this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative
business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to
avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me
and I did not realize it)
By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing
a computational theory of ultimate reality. I try to demolish it from
above, by proposing that perceptions are the effect of computation in
living beings for survival . I assume, and I make use of it, that the comp
hypothesis can also be applied at a level above phisical reality instead of
below: a substitution at the axon firing level could be used to substitute
a part of the brain by computer chips (by making the chips to inject axonic
signals) + perhaps some hormonal control. This substitution level
Matrix-style can produce the same first person indeterminacy and still the
computation is made within this reality, by real computers made of ordinary
matter.
This is enough for a discussion.
Eventually matter emerge from dreams coherence conditions. Dreams are
just the first person view on the relevant computations which exists by
elementary arithmetic.
For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in time
since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy, the mind
would make use of another mathematical structure with a relation of order.
I agree, and N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... } is quite enough, at least with
the addition and multiplication laws. You can define the order by the order
relation x y, that you can define for example by Ez(x + z = y ~(z =
0)). That order is enough to define the order of the computational steps in
any computations.
With computationalism, physics is *literally* entirely reducible to
computer science (= number theory or combinator theory), in a sense similar
to the fact that current biology is literally reducible to chemistry,
itself reducible to physics. Note that computer science refers to number
crunching and syntactical manipulations, but also to the many semantics of
programs and computations, like Scott denotational semantics, or like those
derived from mathematical logic (self-reference theory, model theory,
Curry-Howard isomorphism, etc.).
Here, the use of self-reference
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality. Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip! do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can know relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the rest is the external and internal math structures in arithmetic. which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?. Arithmetic gives the submerged part. The UD complete execution gives it too. The emerged part is given by the first person indeterminacy. Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not realize it) Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs a God (arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical truth as we usually defined it (it is only an approximation). By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing a computational theory of ultimate reality. Not at all. many are confuse about this. This is the confusion between comp and digital physics. Comp is just the bet that I am a machine. Not that reality is computational. Comp makes reality ultra-non- computational, like arithmetical truth is already ultra-non- computational. The computational = Sigma_1 complete. Above it is not computational, and arithmetical truth is the union of all sigma_i (Sigma_0 U Sigma_1 Sigma_3 U Sigma_4 U Sigma_5 U Sigma_6 U Sigma_7 U ...). Digital physics, although perhaps useful, is contradictory at the start, as it implies comp, but if you get the UDA, you can understand that comp entails non digital physics. By transitivity, this shows that Digital physics entails non-digital physics, and so digital physics is refuted (with or without comp). I try to demolish it from above, by proposing that perceptions are the effect of computation in living beings for survival . OK. But you have to assume some sort of reality to define survival and to define what is surviving. I assume, and I make use of it, that the comp hypothesis can also be applied at a level above phisical reality instead of below: a substitution at the axon firing level could be used to substitute a part of the brain by computer chips (by making the chips to inject axonic signals) + perhaps some hormonal control. This substitution level Matrix-style can
What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm Kant's Copernican Revolution Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his Copernican Revolution, that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious: the mind could be a tabula rasa, a blank tablet, no more than a bathtub full of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be noise -- less even than a dream or nothing to us, as Kant alternatively puts it. . Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 10:42:30 Subject: Re: A grand hypothesis about order, life, and consciousness On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order out of chaos *. Since at least higher living beings also possess consciousness, my grand hypothesis is that life = consciousness = awareness = producing order out of chaos. I agree Roger. I would add to this understanding however, a logarithmic sense of increasing quality of experience. human experience = consciousness animal experience = awareness microbiotic experience = sensation inorganic experience = persistence of functions and structures. I would not say producing order out of chaos because I think that chaos is not primordial. Nonsense is a mismatch or attenuation of sense, not the other way around. Order cannot be produced from chaos unless chaos implicitly contains the potential for order...which makes the production of orderly appearance really just a formality. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y5Z0qwWOARAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
