Re: autonomous means a priori
On 02 Oct 2012, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I agree that conscious selection is a posteriori, but the selector and his possible biases or personal baggage are a priori. He has or is a self. It is the a priori part that I am referring to when I insist that the selector must be able to make autonomous choices. The choice must be based mostly on the inside = the selector's mind. In other words, autonomous = a priori OK, so we agree on this too. To put it simply, choice depends on who you are, and who you are depends on who you have been. Selection is used only in the QM or comp context, and has nothing to do with choice and autonomy. Its role in comp and QM is in the singularization and partial relative selection of the local material conditions (your most probable universal neighborhood). My understanding of personal or subjective or 1p filtering has little to do with where the person is (Washington or Moscow). it has to do (if I might say it this way) with where the person has been. Hmm, this defines the person. But in the duplication experience, the problem is that the have been is duplicated identically, and put in different places. This entails a first person indeterminacy: before the duplication, and knowing the protocol of the duplication, the person is indetermined about its immediate, post-duplication, future. This is almost another topics, and I have mentioned it only to recall that with comp, matter is not a primary stuff. You might read my paper sane04 if interested. Yes, complete autonomy of the mind may not be possible, I agree, but we seem to survive this problem. Not sure. Anne Frank was an autonomous agent, until its neighborhood fight badly back: she did not survive the concentration camps. She might have survived in some alternate reality, but we can't access it now. Survival also is relative, but the death of others are absolute relatively to the branch of reality you can be here and now. My objection that sufficent computer autonomy may not be possible to emulate life is still a doubt in my mind. Good. Doubting is a symptom of mind sanity and of soul honesty. In both of these cases, the ultimate limitation might be language, meaning words or the symbols of calculation. Peirce said that we think in symbols. But symbols are Thirdness, the raw stuff filtered (or distorted) from a particular point of view. Words are known to be cultural products. Symbols of computation depend on what a computation can do and how we define the symbols, which I suppose goes back to the limitations and distortions of words. Let me try this: 1) Computer programs use selected symbols and program designs. Hmmm... OK (but this admits different interpretations, I choose the one which seems most coherent with the present discussion, and with comp). 2) These symbols and designs are man-made and hence sometimes distorted and imperfect. I admit that simple calculations can be perfect. Only locally so. Humans can believe that they have invented the computer, but computer have appeared in nature all the time since the beginning, and eventually with comp, nature itself is a video game selected by the infinitely many computers existing in arithmetic independently of time and space. 3) So computer programs are quite possibly reflections of whoever made the program, and of the distortions of computer language, not life itself. I can guess the nuances, but it is a form of anthropomorphism. Life, for a computationalist is almost captured by a very simple program: help yourself. In essence what I am saying here is that only a perfect being can create life. OK. Arithmetical truth can be considered perfect, somehow, and it creates life and lives. But maybe I am being too hard on the possibilities or impossibilities. A golem would still be interesting. There is no worry. God recognizes his creatures, in heaven. But it is nice also when the creatures recognizes themselves on earth, but that can take time. It is nice as it makes suffering less necessary. It is harm reductive. But women get the votes only recently herby, and machines, which are made into slaves at the start, are not yet asking. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: autonomous means a priori ver 2
Hi Roger, Another way to express my view is subjective = a priori = autonomous = the chooser Yes. Both the chooser, and the one selected (but not the selector). It is also the knower. The soul is the knower of its own conscience/ consciousness. The man is when the soul believing it has a body (which might be locally true with respect of the probable computational histories in their neighborhoods). objective = a posteriori = possible choices OK. Responses in ** We're pretty much aligned. I think so (except perhaps on Jesus, but we can come back on this later ... I don't think it is so important, now) Perhaps I should interpret your monad by person, simply. Or generalized person. * No, each person has his own monad, his own corporeal body. They're all different. The Universal Soul, the Inner God, the Knower can leave their bodies (in comp). Substances are all different. A generalized person would be an idea or abstraction. Ideas are all inhabitants of Platonia. A particular person is an inhabitant of Contingia. I am not sure. For two reasons: 1) with comp it seems that there is a universal person, abstract, perhaps, but completely conscious. Like you, me, and the jumping spider. 2) most people on (good dose of) salvia divinorum, (a powerful dissociative psychedelic plant), get *completely* amnesic. They report the lost of all the memories of anything particular about them, including the memory of having once own a body, immersed in space and time. Yet, they report to remain *completely* conscious, like out of time, like out of anything (any thing). With lesser dose, you just dissociate, that is you keep the memories, but you don't believe or associate with them any more (for a period of 4m, the experience is short lived). With comp (assuming no flaws, etc.) things goes like this (roughly speaking) ARITHMETICAL TRUTH INTELLIGIBLE ARITHMETICAL REALM === UNIVERSAL SOUL PARTICULAR SOULS, and then only === PARTICULAR DREAMS SHARING (physical realities). Good. We're pretty much aligned. This has been very helpful. Haha! Yes, you confirm some of my feelings, notably, to be short, that christians are, conceptually, much more closer to comp (and Plato, Plotinus, probably Leibniz, even Descartes when read by taking the context into account) than the atheists, the naturalists and the (even weak) materialists who eliminate persons, not just in books, but in their everyday life, as I am witnessing again and again. pfff... BTW, I suggest everyone to look at Korean movies (on Youtube, you can find a lot), as their culture shows some harmonic (with nice gentle dissonances) relationship between christianity and buddhism. By far my favorite is Hello Ghost, which is, btw and imho, a perfect allegory of the salvia divinorum experience, including the so- called breakthrough. It is a typical movie that you can appreciate to see twice (and don't read the YouTube comments the first time, as some some spoils the story!). Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
