### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

Le 13-juil.-07, à 20:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical
universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little
Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of
rules.
But it can be the result of a finite set of rules. Arithmetic
results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic
is impossible.

I don't understand.

Let us define ARITHMETIC (big case) by the set of true (first order
logical) arithmetical sentences. (like prime number exist,
Let us define arithmetic (lower case) by the set of provable (first
order logical) arithmetical sentences, where provable means provable
by some sound lobian machine.
By incompleteness, whatever sound machine you consisder the
corresponding arithmetic is always a proper subset of ARITHMETIC.

So arithmetical truth (alias ARITHMETIC) cannot be described by any
finite set of rules. Finite sets or rules can never generate the whole
of arithmetical truth.

OK?

Bruno

Yes, I understand.  But ARITHMETIC is generated by or results from
Peano's axioms - right?

Only a tiny part of ARITHMETIC (the set of all true arithmetical
sentenses, or the set of their godel-number) is generated by the Peano
Axioms.
Even ZF genererate a little tiny part (but bigger than PA) of
ARITHMETIC.

existence is a very very tricky notion. In the theory I am proposing
(actually I derived it from the comp principle) the most basic notion
of exists is remarkably well formalize by first order arithmetical
logic, like in Ex(prime(x)):   it exists a prime number.

But isn't this just an elaboration that obscures the prior assumption
that numbers exist?

I don't think so. This was clearly assumed at the start. Natural
numbers are really something you cannot get from less. Actually in
Peano you can prove the existence of each individual number by proving
each formula like Ex(x=0), Ex(x = s(0)), Ex(x = s(s(0)))

If numbers don't exist then Ex(prime(x)) is false, or requires a
different interpretation of E.

Sure. (I am not sure where is your problem)

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Brent Meeker skrev:

Torgny Tholerus wrote:

That is exactly what I wanted to say.  You don't need to have a complete
description of arithmetic.  Our universe can be described by doing a
number of computations from a finite set of rules.  (To get to the
current view of our universe you have to do about 10**60 computations
for every point of space...)

How did you arrive at that number?

It is the number of Planck times since the birth of Universe.  The age of
Universe is 13,7 billion years, number of seconds in a year is 31 million,
and the Planck time is 5,4 * 10**-44 seconds.  That gives 13,7*10**9 *
31*10**6 / (5,4*10**-44) = 8*10**60.

--
Torgny

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

Brent Meeker skrev:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 09-juil.-07,  17:41, Torgny Tholerus a crit :

...

Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical
universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.

But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible.

That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a
complete description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by
doing a number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To get to
the current view of our universe you have to do about 10**60
computations for every point of space...)

--
Torgny

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

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical
universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little
Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.

But it can be the result of a finite set of rules. Arithmetic
results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic
is impossible.

I don't understand.

Let us define ARITHMETIC (big case) by the set of true (first order
logical) arithmetical sentences. (like prime number exist,
Let us define arithmetic (lower case) by the set of provable (first
order logical) arithmetical sentences, where provable means provable
by some sound lobian machine.
By incompleteness, whatever sound machine you consisder the
corresponding arithmetic is always a proper subset of ARITHMETIC.

So arithmetical truth (alias ARITHMETIC) cannot be described by any
finite set of rules. Finite sets or rules can never generate the whole
of arithmetical truth.

OK?

Bruno

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

...

Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical
universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.

But it can be the result of a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from
Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible.

That is exactly what I wanted to say.  You don't need to have a complete
description of arithmetic.  Our universe can be described by doing a
number of computations from a finite set of rules.  (To get to the
current view of our universe you have to do about 10**60 computations
for every point of space...)

How did you arrive at that number?

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical
universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little
Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.
But it can be the result of a finite set of rules. Arithmetic
results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic
is impossible.

I don't understand.

Let us define ARITHMETIC (big case) by the set of true (first order
logical) arithmetical sentences. (like prime number exist,
Let us define arithmetic (lower case) by the set of provable (first
order logical) arithmetical sentences, where provable means provable
by some sound lobian machine.
By incompleteness, whatever sound machine you consisder the
corresponding arithmetic is always a proper subset of ARITHMETIC.

So arithmetical truth (alias ARITHMETIC) cannot be described by any
finite set of rules. Finite sets or rules can never generate the whole
of arithmetical truth.

OK?

Bruno

Yes, I understand.  But ARITHMETIC is generated by or results from Peano's
axioms - right?

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

David Nyman skrev:

You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting
and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of
'existence'.

1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

I agree with you (despite a notion as universe is not primitive in
my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.

Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.

When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
number of times.  And the result of these rules is existing, in the
same way as our universe is existing.

The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a
intended model (universe) admits automatically an infinity of non
isomorphic models  (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).

Our universe is the result of some set of rules.  The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical
universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee
is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an
infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*),
which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any
piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to
the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference
and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the
degree of plausibility of comp.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

Bruno Marchal skrev:

Le 09-juil.-07,  17:41, Torgny Tholerus a crit :

Bruno Marchal skrev:

I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.

Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.

When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the
same way as our universe is existing.

The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a
intended model ("universe") admits automatically an infinity of non
isomorphic models (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).

Yes, you are right, the word "model" is not quite appropriate here.
The universe is not a model that satisfies a set of axioms.

The kind of rules I am thinking of, is rather that kind of rules you
have in Game of Life. When you have a situation at one moment of time
and at one place in space, you can compute the situation the next
moment of time at the same place by using the situations near this
place. The important thing is that the rules uniquely describes the
whole universe by applying the rules over and over again.

(But I want something more general than GoL-like rules, because the
GoL-rules presupposes that you have a space-time from the beginning. I
want a set of rules that are such that the space-time is a result of
the rules. But I don't know how to get there...)

Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical
universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little
Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of
rules.

The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of
coffee is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of
an infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment
(UD*), which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate
exactly any piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).

It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond
to the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp
interference and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure
experimentally the degree of plausibility of comp.

I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules.
Just as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is
our universe the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more
complicated than the GoL-rules...

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
I claim that our universe is the result of a finite set of rules.  Just
as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
the result of a set of rules.  But these rules are more complicated than the
GoL-rules...

--
Torgny Tholerus

What are your proofs or set of evidences that our universe as it is
is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable.

If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly
equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ?

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
I claim that our universe is the result of a finite set of rules.  Just
as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
the result of a set of rules.  But these rules are more complicated than the
GoL-rules...

What are your proofs or set of evidences that our universe as it is
is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable.

There are two proofs:

A)  Everything is finite.  So our universe must be the result from a
finite set of rules.
B)  Occams razor.  Because we can explain everything in our universe
from this finite set of rules, we don't need anything more complicated.
If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly
equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ?

Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe.  A
model is more like a picture of our universe.  You can make a model of a
GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots,
but still there will hold the same relations in both these models.  It
is the relations that are the important things.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical
universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.

But it can be the result of a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from
Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible.

The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee
is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an
infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*),
which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any
piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to
the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference
and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the
degree of plausibility of comp.

Bruno

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

David Nyman skrev:

On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There can be no dynamic time.  In the space-time, time is always
static.

Then you must get very bored ;)

David

But I am not bored, because I don't know what will happen tomorrow. If
I look at our universe from the outside, I see that I will do something
tomorrow, and I see what will happen in one million years. There will
never be any changes in the situations that will happen in the future.

But it is impossible to know today what will happen in the future,
because we can not have total knowledge about how the universe looks
like just now. If we try to find the exact position and the exact
speed of an electron, then that electron will be disturbed by me
looking at it. So it is impossible for me to compute how our universe
will look like tomorrow. But the rules of our universe decide what our
universe will look like tomorrow.
--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
On 10/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

But I am not bored

I'm glad to hear you're not a zombie after all :)

If I look at our universe from the outside

I'd like to know how you perform this feat.

I see that I will do something
tomorrow

I don't doubt it.  But this is my point: your ability to 'see' this
depends on your being able to discriminate differences dynamically.
You may nevertheless believe that, from a gods' eye perspective, the
context which instantiates this is nonetheless 'static'. But this
should surely be a sharp reminder that we aren't gods. We can't look
at our universe from the outside. We can only pose it questions 'from
within', and both the manner of our enquiring, and the content of the
ways.  This, I think, is the point of Bruno's methodology.  It's also
the point of my insistence  on 'reflexivity'.  The gods' eye view is
a just manner of speaking, not a manner of 'existing'.

David

David Nyman skrev:
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always
static.

Then you must get very bored ;)

David

But I am not bored, because I don't know what will happen tomorrow.  If I
look at our universe from the outside, I see that I will do something
tomorrow, and I see what will happen in one million years.  There will never
be any changes in the situations that will happen in the future.

But it is impossible to know today what will happen in the future, because
we can not have total knowledge about how the universe looks like just now.
If we try to find the exact position and the exact speed of an electron,
then that electron will be disturbed by me looking at it.  So it is
impossible for me to compute how our universe will look like tomorrow.  But
the rules of our universe decide what our universe will look like tomorrow.
--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
David Nyman skrev:
Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects.

It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe.  One object
in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.

But we can look at the objects in an other universe.  Just in the same
way that we can look at a GoL-universe.  So we in the A-Universe can
look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing.

One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in
the A-Universe.  If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe,
then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe.  Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both
universes.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

Bruno Marchal skrev:

Le 05-juil.-07,  14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

David Nyman skrev:

You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.

1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.

Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.

When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the
same way as our universe is existing.

Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing
is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.
But we can look at the objects in an other universe.

I would say that the conjunction of the above two sentences is a contradiction.

Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both
universes.

We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about
reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what
the stuff might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the
'zombie world' seriously.  In fact, as I've said, I think you would
have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in
order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could
hardly be claimed to be exactly the same.  However, Bruno doesn't
necessarily agree with me on this, so from a comp perspective, if you
say you're a zombie, I can only sympathise ;)

David

David Nyman skrev:
Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects.

It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe.  One object
in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.

But we can look at the objects in an other universe.  Just in the same
way that we can look at a GoL-universe.  So we in the A-Universe can
look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing.

One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in
the A-Universe.  If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe,
then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe.  Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both
universes.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both
universes.

We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about
reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what
the stuff might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the
'zombie world' seriously.  In fact, as I've said, I think you would
have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in
order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could
hardly be claimed to be exactly the same.

There can be no dynamic time.  In the space-time, time is always
static.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
(Reposted because of some techical problems...)

On Jul 7, 2:00 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

I agree with you (despite a notion as universe is not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.

Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.

When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
number of times.  And the result of these rules is existing, in the
same way as our universe is existing.

Our universe is the result of some set of rules.  The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There can be no dynamic time.  In the space-time, time is always
static.

Then you must get very bored ;)

David

On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both
universes.

We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about
reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what
the stuff might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the
'zombie world' seriously.  In fact, as I've said, I think you would
have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in
order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could
hardly be claimed to be exactly the same.

There can be no dynamic time.  In the space-time, time is always
static.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

I agree with you (despite a notion as universe is not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.

2.  If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there
exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition.
Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and
from this new situation it is possible to compute another new
situation,
and this can be done for ever.  This unlimited set of situations will
be
a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers.
Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations
will exist anyhow.

OK, but I would mention bifurcating computations (with respect to
Oracle or just Universal machine ...)

3.  All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way.  Our universe is one of those possible universes.  Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.

I can agree or disagree with the first sentence. It is too fuzzy. I
disagree with the second sentence. I have argued that the comp
assumption you should say our universes (note the s), and strictly
speaking all (accessible) universes are ours. Of course universes, or
better (imo) computational histories (up to some equivalence) exists
independent of observers, like the fact that machine A on argument B
stops or does not stops independently of me.

4.  For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
interesting.

Oh! Surely the discovery of a baby tiny universe would be interesting,
even without observers  (like the moon is not so bad ...)

But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
with observers and universes without observers.  They all exist in the
same way.

It really depends what you mean by universe. This cannot be an
obvious notion in the comp setting. Have you read the UDA up to step 7
(at least) ?

The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a
separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe.  But because
we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and
we
are specially interested in our own universe.

Again what do you mean by our own universe? Are you meaning Deutsch
Multiverse or the comp-many computations seen from inside ?
I think that apparent universes emerge from personal gluing of
histories.

But otherwise there is
noting special with our universe.

There is nothing special about our historical geographies I would say.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
interesting.  But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
with observers and universes without observers.  They all exist in the
same way.

I still disagree, but I have a slightly different formulation of my
previous replies which might be more consistent with my remarks to
Bruno re the 1-personal discrimination of self-relation as 'action' or
'behaviour'.  Essentially, if we conceive of the plenitude of all
possible universes as existing 'statically', then the recovery of
'dynamic' or temporal existence must be seen as characteristic of
1-personal self-relation: that is, 1-persons are active participants,
not merely 'observers'.  What I said to Bruno was that my
justification was simply that such a brute claim seems to be required
if dynamism is to be recovered at all from stasis.  I'm less sure
however that such a claim is strictly 'necessary' in the logical
sense.

Given this, I suppose it is possible to conceive of a B-Universe in
which this brute claim is not granted.  IOW no aspect of the
self-relation of the B-Universe is characteristically dynamic or
1-personal.  Such a universe would be static in all aspects - 'inside'
and 'outside' - and consequently it would contain no active
participants and consequently none of the stuff characteristic of
such participative behaviour.  However, such a static universe could
not, by the same token, be claimed to be exactly the same as the
A-Universe, precisely because nothing whatsoever could be said to
'happen' to any object it instantiates.  The points I made earlier
about the mutual inaccessibility of A and B-Universes still stand.
Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects.

In some sense 'interviews' between B-Universe structures could be said
to exist, but not to 'occur'.  The content of the statements of
B-Universe objects about their internal states would be similarly
'justified' in terms of static self-relation as those in the
A-Universe, but it wouldn't indeed be 'like anything to be' a
suggests that the notion of consciousness as equating to 'what it's
like to be' something is incoherent.  Rather, consciousness seems more
'what it's like to enact' something.  Consequently, the 'absolute'
quality of consciousness is just what its like for the One (per
Plotinus) to enact particular kinds of self-relation.  And such
quality indeed seems 'absolute' as opposed to 'relative', because it
doesn't seem logically necessary for such enaction to emerge
1-personally from static self-relation.  It's just that our own case
demonstrates its 'absolute' contingency in the A-Universe.  So zombies
may be possible, but not in the A-Universe, and consequently we
needn't fear ever being fooled by one in any accessible encounter.

What this amounts to is understanding 'consciousness' essentially as
the recovery of dynamism from stasis, or active participation from
instantiation, or time from eternity, or the A-series from the
B-series.  It's also treating 'dynamism' as 'experientiaI' rather than
'physical', which of course is moot.  But I've never seen any really
satisfactory direct treatment of dynamism with respect to static
formulations of existence except as a brute assertion, or mere
implication, of its being characteristic of 1-personal self-relation
to appropriate structure.  Perhaps Bruno could comment whether this
way of looking at things is consistent with comp?  For example, it
might seem that 'dovetailing' carries some implication of dynamism, or
at least sequentiality, with it from the outset.

Alternatively, if a static background is not granted, then in such a
view dynamism is already at the heart of self-relation, and with it,
the necessary return of 1-personal participation.  However, a
fundamentally 'tensed' view of reality presents its own (particularly
structural) problems, which are kettle of fish for a different
discussion.

David

David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

2.  If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there
exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition.
Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and
from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation,
and this can be done for ever.  This unlimited set of situations will be
a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers.
Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations
will exist anyhow.

3.  All mathmatically possible universes exists, and ```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

2.  If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there
exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition.
Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and
from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation,
and this can be done for ever.  This unlimited set of situations will be
a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers.
Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations
will exist anyhow.

3.  All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way.  Our universe is one of those possible universes.  Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.

4.  For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
interesting.  But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
with observers and universes without observers.  They all exist in the
same way.  The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a
separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe.  But because
we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and we
are specially interested in our own universe.  But otherwise there is
noting special with our universe.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

TT:  All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way.  Our universe is one of those possible universes.  Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.

DN: But here at the heart of your argument is the confusion again over
language.  If we grant that a mathematically possible universe exists
'independently' (i.e. other than as a sub-structure of the A-Universe) it -
and all consequences flowing from it - must exist self-relatively.  This is
the crucial entailment of 'independent' existence, as we discussed before.
And it exposes the confusion of the two distinct senses of 'independent'.
The first sense is of course that an independent universe does not 'depend'
on any observers it instantiates to grant it existence (i.e. they don't
'cause' it to exist).  It's in just this sense that it's 'independent' or
self-relative, and this is the sense you rely on.

But the second and crucial sense flows directly out of this 'self-relative
independence': which is that any self-relative universe capable of
generating the necessary structure simply *entails* the existence of
'observers' (i.e. self-relative sub-structures).  IOW, self-relation is what
observation *is*.   It's in precisely this crucial sense that an
'independently existing universe' is not 'independent of observation'. On
the contrary: it *entails* observation.  And of course our existence as
observers in self-relation to the A-Universe demonstrates this 'dependency'
in precisely this critical sense.

David

David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1.  The relation 1+1=2 is always true.  It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers.  The
truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.

2.  If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there
exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition.
Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and
from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation,
and this can be done for ever.  This unlimited set of situations will be
a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers.
Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations
will exist anyhow.

3.  All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way.  Our universe is one of those possible universes.  Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.

4.  For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
interesting.  But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
with observers and universes without observers.  They all exist in the
same way.  The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a
separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe.  But because
we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and we
are specially interested in our own universe.  But otherwise there is
noting special with our universe.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Jason skrev:
Note that you did not say thought was non-existent in B-universe, I
think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection
of a large number of simultaneous thoughts.
I had the intention to include thoughts, but I was unsure about how to
spell that word (where to put all those h:s...), so I included the
thoughts in all that kind of stuff.  The B-Universe should not include
any thouths(!).  The B-Universe should be a strictly materialistic Universe.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Your example suppose many things which are not granted to be possible:
1- The one who compare them is in neither of them... What is comparing
these universes ? a conscious being ?
2- The fact that they are identical implies that both have
consciousness. If one really lacked it then they would be no one to
ask what it feels as they're would be no person in it and that would
be a huge difference.

I don't remember having read participants of this list arguing for a
dualism of consciousness. Consciousness must be a process created by
properties of this universe, it is not a component that can be thrown
out, it is part of it.

If behavior is the same as a conscious being (please mind that for
this comparison you acknowledge the existence of at least one to
compare) then the being is conscious too. You can't say they're the
same but are different, it is not consistant.

Regards,
Quentin

2007/7/4, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Jason skrev:
Note that you did not say thought was non-existent in B-universe, I
think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection
of a large number of simultaneous thoughts.
I had the intention to include thoughts, but I was unsure about how to
spell that word (where to put all those h:s...), so I included the
thoughts in all that kind of stuff.  The B-Universe should not include
any thouths(!).  The B-Universe should be a strictly materialistic Universe.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```

David Nyman skrev:
On 04/07/07, Stathis
Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes
A

and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.

DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate
sleight of imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss. When
one imagines the 'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one
constructs precisely the false relationship that is the source of the
confusion with respect to consciousness. Any possible observer must in
fact be integral to their own universe.

You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the
"gliders" move. If you look at "Conway's game of Life" in Wikipedia,
you can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner.
This is possible although there is no observer integral to that
Universe.

The same is true about the B-Universe. You can look at it as an
outside observer.

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
You're doing a giant step for considering current GoL as an
universe... but anyway you can, but it's not because you see one
glider in your tiny framed GoL that the interaction of billions of
cells does not generate a consciousness inside the GoL universe and
you as an external observer couldn't see/recognize it as it is.

Quentin

2007/7/4, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

David Nyman skrev:
On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

SP:  We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A
and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.

DN:  Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight of
imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss.  When one imagines the
'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one constructs precisely the
false relationship that is the source of the confusion with respect to
consciousness.  Any possible observer must in fact be integral to their own
universe.
You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the
gliders move.  If you look at Conway's game of Life in Wikipedia, you
can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner.  This is
possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe.

The same is true about the B-Universe.  You can look at it as an outside
observer.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```On 04/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

TT:  You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the
gliders move.  If you look at Conway's game of Life in Wikipedia, you
can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner.  This is
possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe.

DN:  Please, if we are to make progress, may we have more precision?  You
clearly specified a hypothetical B-Universe which you invited us to consider
might be different in some fundamental way to ours.  GoL is clearly in no
way a different 'universe' in this sense - you're making a loose,
conversational use of the term which has an entirely different entailment.
GoL is a part of the A-Universe just as we are, so as integral observers of
course we can observe it.

You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO.  This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.  When
we perform the thought experiment, we cause a B-Universe to 'exist'.  What
kind of existence is this?  Well, it's a thought pattern, so you may wish to
consider it as an aspect of brain, or mind, or both.  Either way, its part
of us, and as such, its 'existence' consists of participation in the
A-Universe. Simply put, the entailment of 'existence' is participation.

So we may grant real existence to the *idea* of the B-Universe whilst
recognising that its putative reference is non-existent in the A-Universe.
Nevertheless, we may still 'flesh-out' the metaphor of the B-Universe, but
crucially, if we are to do so without misleading ourselves, we must grant
events within it the equivalent category of actual - not metaphorical -
existence as that possessed by events within the A-Universe: that of
participation, or self-relation.

David

David Nyman skrev:

On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

SP:  We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A
and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.

DN:  Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight
of imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss.  When one imagines
the 'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one constructs precisely
the false relationship that is the source of the confusion with respect to
consciousness.  Any possible observer must in fact be integral to their own
universe.

You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the
gliders move.  If you look at Conway's game of Life in Wikipedia, you
can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner.  This is
possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe.

The same is true about the B-Universe.  You can look at it as an outside
observer.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as
the materialistic parts of our Universe.  We may call this second
Universe B-Universe.  (Our Universe is A-Universe.)

This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe.  Where there is a
hydrogen atom in A-Universe, there will also be a hydrogen atom in
B-Universe, and everywhere that there is an oxygen atom in A-Universe,
there will be an oxygen atom i B-universe.  The only difference between
A-Universe and B-Universe is that B-Universe is totally free from
consciousness, feelings, minds, souls, and all that kind of stuff.  The
only things that exist in B-Universe are atoms reacting with eachother.
All objects in B-Universe behave in exactly the same way as the objects
in A-Universe.

The objects in B-Universe produces the same kind of sounds as we produce
in A-Universe, and the objects in B-Universe pushes the same buttons on
their computers as we do in our A-Universe.

Questions:

Is B-Universe possible?
If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer,
if we ask it: Are you conscious??

So far as I know, consciousness is some processes in (at least some)
human brains.  Since B-universe would have brains with the same
processes, I'd say those objects would answer, Yes. with the same
likelihood as in this universe - in other words I don't think there's
any difference between the A-universe and the B-universe.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism revisited.

```
On 04/07/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

TT:  This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe.

DN:  IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here.  No universe
can look like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an
'observer' who is an embedded sub-structure of that universe. The looking
that you refer to here is an illusory artefact of syntax - i.e. the relation
is to an imaginative construct which in fact is part of A-Universe.  IOW
this sort of 'existence' is a metaphor which is relative to *us*, not the
self-relation of any realisable B-Universe.  What you describe as B-Universe
looking exactly the same is really an implicit relation to an observer in
*that* universe, and consequently that observer is already accepted as
conscious.  Alternatively, it doesn't look like anything to anyone, and
hence is by no stretch of the imagination exactly the same.

We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A
and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Le 19-juin-07, à 10:55, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote (to Torgny Tholerus)

TT: The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You
can make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers
are enough complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see
how you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the
behavior  that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is
this first person experience.

Of course, in this context, I do agree with Mohsen Ravanbakhsh's anwer.
But eventually, I could say, perhaps with David, that the first person
experience is not so much the problem. On the contrary, the third
person discourse and its apparent sharability (first person plural,
with the comp hyp), is the real difficult problem. It just happens
that we are used to take that problem for granted.
Also, for Torgny, I doubt there is a problem with first person notions,
given that for him (if that means something) there is no first person!
Torgny self-zombiness is irrefutable, like solipsism (but more original
than solipsism though). Of course each of us capable of knowing
anything knows that Torgny is wrong about us, and I guess Torgny is not
a zombie so that I guess (and cannot do anything more than that) that
he is also wrong about himself. But this nobody can know for sure. OK?

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Le 19-juin-07, à 21:27, Brent Meeker wrote to Quentin:

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You
can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers
are
enough complicated.
But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not
see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the
behavior
that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this
first
person experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just
some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience of first person, I can see that you are just showing a
special kind of behaviour.  You behave as if you have the
subjective
experience of first person.  And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour.  But in
the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no subjective
experience, there are just a lot of electrical fenomena
interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no
first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus
Like I said earlier, this is pure nonsense as I have proof that I
have
inner experience... I can't prove it to you because this is what
this is
all about, you can't prove 1st person pov to others. And I don't
see why
the fact that a computer is made of wire can't give it
consciousness...
there is no implication at all.

Again denying the phenomena does not make it disappear... it's no
explanation at all.

Quentin
I think the point is that after all the behavior is explained,
including
brain processes,  we will just say, See, that's the consciousness
there.
Just as after explaining metabolism and growth and reproduction we
said,
See, that's life.  Some people still wanted to know where the
life
(i.e. elan vital) was, but it seemed to be an uninteresting
question of
semantics.

Brent Meeker

I don't think the comparison is fair... between 'elan vital' and
consciousness.

I think it is fair.  Remember that in prospect people argued that
chemistry and physics could never explain life no matter how
completely they described the physical processes in a living thing.
All those cells and molecules and atoms were inanimate, none of them
had life - so they couldn't possibly explain the difference between

I think you miss the point.  To define life/death can only be a useless
semantic game. But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
(especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
explain it completely. Like Quentin I do think it is unfair to compare
elan vital and consciousness. Somehow elan vital is a poor theory
which has been overthrown by a better one. consciousness is a fact,
albeit a peculiar personal one in need of an explanation; and there is
a quasi consensus among workers in that field that we don't see how to
explain consciousness from something simpler (a bit like the number
btw...).

I don't think consciousness is just a semantic question.

I didn't mean to imply that.  I meant that the residual question,
after all the behavior and processes are explained (answering very
substantive questions) will seem to be a matter of making semantic
distinctions, like the question, Is a virus alive?

As I
don't believe that you could pin point consciousness... until proved
otherwise.

No it won't be pin pointed.  It will be diffuse, an interaction of
multiple sensory and action processes and you won't be able to point
to a single location.  But, if we do succeed with our explanation,
maybe we'll be able to say, This being is conscious of this now and
not conscious of that. or This being does not have self-awareness
and this one does.

Well,  now, I can prove that if the comp hyp is true then those
brave-new-worlds-like assertions are provably wrong. If comp is true,
nobody, I should perhaps say nosoul, will ever been able to decide if
any other entity is conscious or not. Actually comp could be false
because it is not even clear some entity can be completely sure of
his/her/it own consciousness

And conscious and aware will have well defined operational (3rd
person) meanings.

Or maybe we'll discover that we have to talk in some other terms not
replication.

Terms by themselves will not sort out the difficulty. Even just our
beliefs or bets in numbers presents big conceptual difficulty.

Bruno

Brent Meeker
One cannot guess the real difficulties of a problem before
having solved it.
--- Carl Ludwig Siegel

Quentin

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Bruno Marchal skrev:

But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
(especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
explain it completely.
That sentence is wrong.  There is at least one person (me...) that
really doubts about my own consciousness.  I am conscious about that I
am not conscious.  I know that I does not know anything.  When I go to
the dentist I behave as if I am feeling strong pain, because my pain
center is directly stimulated by the dentist, which is causing my behaviour.

Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive.  Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
(especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
explain it completely.

That sentence is wrong.

Don't think so...

There is at least one person (me...) that
really doubts about my own consciousness.  I am conscious about that I
am not conscious.  I know that I does not know anything.  When I go to
the dentist I behave as if I am feeling strong pain, because my pain
center is directly stimulated by the dentist, which is causing my
behaviour.

What is behaving ? (can't ask for who obviously you're insisting that there
isn't any).

Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive.  Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.

I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness in the
first place.

Quenton

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Quentin Anciaux skrev:

On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:

Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive.  Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.

I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness in the
first place.

An animal can show a consciouslike behaviour. When a dog sees a
rabbit, then the dog behaves as if he is conscious about that there is
food in front of him. He starts running after the rabbit as quick as
he can.

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Thursday 28 June 2007 19:22:35 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:

Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive.  Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.

I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness in the
first place.

An animal can show a consciouslike behaviour.  When a dog sees a rabbit,
then the dog behaves as if he is conscious about that there is food in
front of him.  He starts running after the rabbit as quick as he can.

--
Torgny Tholerus

It doesn't mean anything... what means as if if the thing you are comparing
it to does not exists (here consciousness). You can't act as if you are
conscious if cousciousness is something which does not exists, it simply
doesn't mean anything. By the way, I'm sure dogs are conscious (have inner
personal world).

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Bruno Marchal wrote:

Le 19-juin-07, à 21:27, Brent Meeker wrote to Quentin:

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You
can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers
are
enough complicated.
But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not
see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the
behavior
that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this
first
person experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just
some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience of first person, I can see that you are just showing a
special kind of behaviour.  You behave as if you have the
subjective
experience of first person.  And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour.  But in
the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no subjective
experience, there are just a lot of electrical fenomena
interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no
first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus
Like I said earlier, this is pure nonsense as I have proof that I
have
inner experience... I can't prove it to you because this is what
this is
all about, you can't prove 1st person pov to others. And I don't
see why
the fact that a computer is made of wire can't give it
consciousness...
there is no implication at all.

Again denying the phenomena does not make it disappear... it's no
explanation at all.

Quentin
I think the point is that after all the behavior is explained,
including
brain processes,  we will just say, See, that's the consciousness
there.
Just as after explaining metabolism and growth and reproduction we
said,
See, that's life.  Some people still wanted to know where the
life
(i.e. elan vital) was, but it seemed to be an uninteresting
question of
semantics.

Brent Meeker
I don't think the comparison is fair... between 'elan vital' and
consciousness.
I think it is fair.  Remember that in prospect people argued that
chemistry and physics could never explain life no matter how
completely they described the physical processes in a living thing.
All those cells and molecules and atoms were inanimate, none of them
had life - so they couldn't possibly explain the difference between

I think you miss the point.  To define life/death can only be a useless
semantic game. But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
(especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
explain it completely. Like Quentin I do think it is unfair to compare
elan vital and consciousness. Somehow elan vital is a poor theory
which has been overthrown by a better one. consciousness is a fact,
albeit a peculiar personal one in need of an explanation; and there is
a quasi consensus among workers in that field that we don't see how to
explain consciousness from something simpler (a bit like the number
btw...).

Whether we can explain consciousness completely (or at least as
completely as we have explained life) is an open question - no need to
give up yet.  I think there is a good deal of mystery mongering about
consciousness, as there was about life, which may one day be seen as a
matter of asking the wrong questions.  There was also a quasi consensus
that life could not be explained.  Every theory is seen to be a poor one
from the viewpoint of a better one.

I don't think consciousness is just a semantic question.
I didn't mean to imply that.  I meant that the residual question,
after all the behavior and processes are explained (answering very
substantive questions) will seem to be a matter of making semantic
distinctions, like the question, Is a virus alive?

As I
don't believe that you could pin point consciousness... until proved
otherwise.
No it won't be pin pointed.  It will be diffuse, an interaction of
multiple sensory and action processes and you won't be able to point
to a single location.  But, if we do succeed with our explanation,
maybe we'll be able to say, This being is conscious of this now and
not conscious of that. or This being does not have self-awareness
and this one does.

Well,  now, I can prove that if the comp hyp is true then those
brave-new-worlds-like assertions are provably wrong. If comp is true,
nobody, I should perhaps say nosoul, will ever been able to decide if
any other entity is conscious or not. Actually comp could be false
because it is not even clear some entity can be completely sure of
his/her/it own consciousness

In that case I'd say comp has been disproved; as I can decide whether
another ```

### Re: Asifism

```
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
(especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
explain it completely.
That sentence is wrong.

Don't think so...

There is at least one person (me...) that
really doubts about my own consciousness.  I am conscious about that I
am not conscious.  I know that I does not know anything.  When I go to
the dentist I behave as if I am feeling strong pain, because my pain
center is directly stimulated by the dentist, which is causing my
behaviour.

What is behaving ? (can't ask for who obviously you're insisting that there
isn't any).

Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive.  Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.

I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness in the
first place.

Quenton

But if consciousness is implied by conscious like behavior then it may
be explained by the same things that explain behavior, i.e. physics and
chemistry.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Thursday 28 June 2007 21:59:40 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
But nobody really doubts about his own consciousness
(especially going to the dentist), despite we cannot define it nor
explain it completely.

That sentence is wrong.

Don't think so...

There is at least one person (me...) that
really doubts about my own consciousness.  I am conscious about that I
am not conscious.  I know that I does not know anything.  When I go to
the dentist I behave as if I am feeling strong pain, because my pain
center is directly stimulated by the dentist, which is causing my
behaviour.

What is behaving ? (can't ask for who obviously you're insisting that
there isn't any).

Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive.  Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.

I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness in the
first place.

Quenton

But if consciousness is implied by conscious like behavior then it may
be explained by the same things that explain behavior, i.e. physics and
chemistry.

Brent Meeker

Well, I don't see how that denies consciousness... In the other hand,
currently, physics and chemistry don't explain everything... and maybe Bruno
hypothesis is what underlink all this... still that does not deny
consciousness phenomena. And still I *can't* accept any (so called) proof
that consciousness does not exists given *I* at least am conscious for sure.

Regards,
Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
Hi Brent,

Brent: '  You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific
method banished slavery and tyranny and racism.  Would that it
were so.  Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to
politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically
the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism,
Nazism, and Communism, as well as liberal democracy.  One can
point to those political movements now and regard them as
experiments that demonstrated their faults, but that's not much
help in shaping the future.'

MP: No Brent, I am an optimist as a matter of principle but I
don't believe in fairies. This is why I assert that all four
'fundamental ingredients' are necessary. Doom will follow if any
is missing!  :-o   My point is that scientific method has
provided the key to unlocking the true latent power available
but otherwise hidden in the natural world. For example fossil
hydrocarbons and the engines they power have vastly increased
the energy available to be deployed in human work. Put simply,
slave labour as means and method for creating capital works or
maintenance is not just cruel, it is stupidly inefficient also.
I am sure we are on the same page with this.

I am asserting that none of compassion, democracy, ethics or
scientific method is an 'optional extra'; without any of these
your society is doomed both to reversion into authoritarian
barbarity with concomitant lethal conflict, plus mass poverty
and all the ills that come with it.

As I am sure you have noticed people often loosely talk about
science as being responsible for all manner of problems or bad
things [paraphrasing Pratchett: 'All things actions are bad for
some particular value of 'bad']. The truth is that scientific
method is just a tool, and the uses or abuses to which it is put
depend on the ethical stance and decisions of those responsible.

In summary: I assert that all policies of governing bodies,
private or public, will become self-defeating where they leave
out any of these essential ingredients. So a country governed by
Sharia Law or Biblical principles [to name but two] to the
exclusion of any of the four essential ingredients, is doomed
eventually to poverty, strife, and all the miseries these evils
bring.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Brent Meeker wrote:
Mark Peaty wrote:
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to
ensure that it doesn't.

If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a
moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis
of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am
wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion,

What assertion? That history has not finished yet?  I certainly wouldn't
disagree with that, nor with trying to ensure that it doesn't.

which
of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an
opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out.
Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied
by respect.

The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method.
Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras,
Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method,
certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what
were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of
sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and
unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for
most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as
things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear,
superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the
champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have
time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up..

You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery
and tyranny and racism.  Would that it were so.  Perhaps the scientific
method can be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but
historically the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism,
Nazism, and Communism, as well as liberal democracy.  One can point to those
political movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated
their faults, but that's not much help in shaping the future.

I recently defended the global warming science in a public debate.  The
opposition came mostly from libertarians who were sure it was all a
conspiracy to justify a world  government with totalitarian powers.  They
weren't against science, but they feared an authoritarian government.

Our unfortunate experience in the mideast over the last few decades is that
given democracy, the citizens will vote to impose majority views on
minorities in the most draconian fashion.  So it is not only democracy that
is needed, but *liberal* democracy, democracy that preserves individual
autonomy and ```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method

These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.

Quentin

2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method

These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
MN: 'If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' and that's
a lovely way to put put it now isn't it is exactly what I was
thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
universe writ small.

one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
_our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
predominates.

Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

David

DN: '

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)

Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
*   a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
*   a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.

I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of ```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```On 22/06/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

MP:
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?

DN:
.and if they have babies, where the ortho-dimensional-hell are we going
to find baby-sitters?  Seriously though folks, what I enjoy about such
speculations, pace more rigorous mathematico-physical investigation (of
which I am incapable), is to try to understand how they converge on the
implicit semantics we use to intuit meaning from the worlds we inhabit.
It's a bit like comparative philology, in the sense of reconciling
narratives coded in different symbols, to explicate a common set of
intuitions.   But on the other hand this may just be what Russell, more
acerbically, calls gibberish (and he may be right!)

David

MN: 'If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' and that's
a lovely way to put put it now isn't it is exactly what I was
thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
universe writ small.

one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
_our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
predominates.

Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

David

DN: '

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of ```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to
ensure that it doesn't.

If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a
moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis
of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am
wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which
of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an
opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out.
Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied
by respect.

The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method.
Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras,
Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method,
certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what
were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of
sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and
unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for
most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as
things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear,
superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the
champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have
time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up.

The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is
not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true
human strength;
ethics is the foundation of civilisation;
Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success
of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government
and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they
are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't
really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its
necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia;
the application of scientific method is transforming the human
species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile
grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours,
following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the
further application of the method, and so it will ever be.

Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not
trivial, and it is not going to go away.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.

Quentin

2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method

These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.
Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
Mark Peaty wrote:
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to
ensure that it doesn't.

If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a
moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis
of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am
wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion,

What assertion? That history has not finished yet?  I certainly wouldn't
disagree with that, nor with trying to ensure that it doesn't.

which
of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an
opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out.
Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied
by respect.

The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method.
Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras,
Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method,
certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what
were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of
sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and
unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for
most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as
things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear,
superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the
champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have
time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up..

You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery and
tyranny and racism.  Would that it were so.  Perhaps the scientific method can
be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically
the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism, Nazism, and
Communism, as well as liberal democracy.  One can point to those political
movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated their faults,
but that's not much help in shaping the future.

I recently defended the global warming science in a public debate.  The
opposition came mostly from libertarians who were sure it was all a conspiracy
to justify a world  government with totalitarian powers.  They weren't against
science, but they feared an authoritarian government.

Our unfortunate experience in the mideast over the last few decades is that
given democracy, the citizens will vote to impose majority views on minorities
in the most draconian fashion.  So it is not only democracy that is needed, but
*liberal* democracy, democracy that preserves individual autonomy and values.
The problem is how to inculcate a scientific attitude of tolerance for
disagreement and uncertanity in people.

Brent Meeker

The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is
not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true
human strength;
ethics is the foundation of civilisation;
Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success
of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government
and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they
are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't
really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its
necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia;
the application of scientific method is transforming the human
species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile
grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours,
following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the
further application of the method, and so it will ever be.

Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not
trivial, and it is not going to go away.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.

Quentin

2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method

These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.
Yes, knot theory seems to be getting ```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Friday 22 June 2007 20:38:50 Mark Peaty wrote:
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to
ensure that it doesn't.

Agreed, but it was not what I meant to say... it is the opposite... you can't
assert Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are
prerequisites for the survival of civilisation if you really believe
that History has not finished yet.

If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a
moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis
of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am
wrong.

I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't truly
say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't
be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better
system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are.

Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which
of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an
opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out.
Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied
by respect.

You do not have evidence too... Science has grown without democracy, ethics
too, compassion too, moral basis too. Maybe I missed your demonstration of
your assertion... but what you're saying are not all time certainty.

Regards,
Quentin

The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method.
Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras,
Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method,
certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what
were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of
sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and
unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for
most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as
things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear,
superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the
champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have
time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up.

The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is
not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true
human strength;
ethics is the foundation of civilisation;
Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success
of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government
and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they
are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't
really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its
necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia;
the application of scientific method is transforming the human
species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile
grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours,
following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the
further application of the method, and so it will ever be.

Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not
trivial, and it is not going to go away.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.

Quentin

2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method

These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

```

### Re: Asifism

```
QA: '... you can't
assert Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are
prerequisites for the survival of civilisation if you really believe
that History has not finished yet.

MP: The fact of me making the assertion is logical; what I
assert is not a closed prescription of thought and action, quite
the opposite in fact.
NB: 'prerequisites' are necessary but not necessarily sufficient

This is not some academic argument or computer simulation in
which the parameters can be changed and the program re-run. True
history is 'once-off'.
We in our culture and history are like fish in water but whereas
the fish cannot change their water [they don't even see it] we
who are capable of reflexive awareness and contemplation can,
through work on ourselves and on communication media, change the
'world' as it appears to others and therefore potentially we can
change our world for the better.

I am not referring to some kind of Trotskyist 'end of history',
I am referring to the real possibility of anthropogenic terminal
catastrophe.

CA: '
I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't
truly
say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't
be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better
system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are.'

MP: But here we agree! This is an essential feature that
democracy shares with science: its eternal incompleteness. [As
folk are wont to say about the World according to Bill Gates:
'It's not a fault, it's a feature!' :-] What we can say is that
democracy in most of its evolving forms is much better than all
the alternatives.

QA: '... Science has grown without democracy, ethics
too, compassion too, moral basis too.'

MP: Don't be so quick to dismiss the world-transforming power of
science. 'Speciation' is what is happening to homo sapiens right
now, but we want ALL members of our species to participate.
Also, the seeds of science appeared in many parts of the world
through history since, well 'the Bronze Age' I think, but
germination required the printing presses and alphabet based
writing systems of Europe to grow into real existence. My guess
is the difficulties of learning to read and write Chinese [and I
am well familiar with the difficulties] is what prevented the
earlier growth of scientific method in East Asia where block
printing had been known for centuries before the idea came to
Europe.

But the growth of good science needs real democracy, just like
real democracy needs the profound cultural support of knowledge
of scientific method. Remember, Athenian 'democracy' required a
totally disenfranchised slave class to create the surplus value
consumed by the warrior elite as members of the latter contested
for status and power amongst their own class.

in passing: 'history is one-off' is why Karl Popper excluded
most aspects of history, 'sociology', psychology, etc, from his
definition of science, but that is another story

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 20:38:50 Mark Peaty wrote:
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to
ensure that it doesn't.

Agreed, but it was not what I meant to say... it is the opposite... you can't
assert Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are
prerequisites for the survival of civilisation if you really believe
that History has not finished yet.

If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a
moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis
of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am
wrong.

I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't
truly
say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't
be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better
system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are.

Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which
of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an
opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out.
Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied
by respect.

You do not have evidence too... Science has grown without democracy, ethics
too, compassion too, moral basis too. Maybe I missed your demonstration of
your assertion... but what you're saying are not all time certainty.

Regards,
Quentin

snip

Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not
trivial, and it is not going to go away.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.

Quentin

2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method

These are prerequisites for the survival of ```

### Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism

```
DN: '
I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'

MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)

Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
*   a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
*   a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.

I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.

For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' or node. This
provides a potential explanation of quantum entanglement in that
if each of the two faces of a Janus connection were in different
particles, those particles might be fleeing from each other at
the speed of light, or something close to it, yet for that
particular Janus connection each face will still be simply the
back side of its twin such that their temporal separation might
be no more than the Planck time.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 12, 2:01 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
(Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
reflexivity power of the number's themselves.

I simply meant that in AR numbers 'assert themselves', in that they
are taken as being (in some sense) primitive rather than being merely
mental constructs (intuitionism, I think?)  Is this not so?

OK (but again the symmetry-breaking is a consequence (too be sure
there remains technical problems ...)

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems ```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

David

DN: '

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'

MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)

Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
*   a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
*   a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.

I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.

For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' or node. This
provides a potential explanation of quantum entanglement in that
```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

David

On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DN: '

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'

MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)

Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
*   a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
*   a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.

I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.

For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' ```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

David

On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DN: '

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'

MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)

Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
*   a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
*   a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.

I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.

For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' ```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno

If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality.

PS - Mark, what is CDES?

David

On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DN: '

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'

MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?

As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)

Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
*   a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
*   a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.

I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.

For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' ```

### Re: Asifism

```What you're referring to, is another problem, namely the other's mind. how
we know that another human is experiencing what we do? We actually assume
that to be true, that everyone has consciousness.
But it doesn't justify the other mistake. This does not mean you can deny

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some sort
of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective experience of
first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see that
there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of electrical
fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

Once more here you've interpreted the situation from a third person point of
view. I don't care what YOU can conclude from MY behavior. It's ONE'S own
perception of his OWN experience matters! and it is more obvious than any
other fact.

On 6/19/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of
first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show
up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

In all your reasoning you implicitely use consciousness for example
when
you
says When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, *I* can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.

Who/what is I ? Who/what is seeing ? What does it means for you to see
if
you have no inner representation of what you (hmmm if you're not
conscious,
you is not an appropriate word) see, what does it means to see at all ?

In all your reasonning you allude to I, this is what 1st pov is about
not
about you (the conscious being/knower) looking at another person as if
there
was no obsever (means you) in the observation.

Quentin

Our language is very primitive.  You can not decribe the reality with it.

If you have a computer robot with a camera and an arm, how should that
robot express itself to descibe what it observes?  Could the robot say: I
see a red brick and a blue brick, och when I take the blue brick and
places it on the red brick, then I see that the blue brick is over the red
brick.?

But if the robot says this, then you will say that this proves that the
robot is conscious, because it uses the word I.

How shall the robot express itself, so it will be correct?  It this
possible?  Or is our language incapable of expressing reality?

We human beings are slaves under our language.  The language restricts out
thinking.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh,
Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 20, 8:56 am, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

Once more here you've interpreted the situation from a third person point of
view. I don't care what YOU can conclude from MY behavior. It's ONE'S own
perception of his OWN experience matters! and it is more obvious than any
other fact.

Mohsen, I agree with what you're trying to say here, but I wonder
whether the best 'move' against Torgny's little 'game' (I'm sure he's
playing with us!) is actually to accept what he's saying.  I can agree
with him that:

there is no first person experience

because I don't find myself 'experiencing' my 'first person
experience' (this would lead to an infinite regression of
'experiencers').  Rather, I find myself always simply participating in
a 1-person world, which is a subset of a larger participatory
actuality.  Torgny is of course equally a participant in this
actuality.  His error is that he confuses 3-person descriptions with
the 'participants' they merely 'represent'.  3-person descriptions are
always proxies for some distal participant, 'external' to our own 1-
person world: they are 'abstractions'.

As soon as one commits this cognitive error, one is of course struck
by the lack of 1-person characteristics from the proxy 3-person 'point
of view'.  Quite correct: the proxy in itself *doesn't have* an
independent point of view: it's just a parasite on one's own 1-person
world. Metaphorically, it's a sort of 'mirror' that 'reflects' an
external actuality.  'Proxy Torgny' *represents* something else: i.e.
'Participatory Torgny' - and *he* of course may well be granted such a
point of view (as you imply) by reflexive analogy.  But the two must
not be confused.  Ironically, Torgny is presenting us with a textbook
case of the category error that arises from mistaking one's
'reflection' for oneself!

David

What you're referring to, is another problem, namely the other's mind. how
we know that another human is experiencing what we do? We actually assume
that to be true, that everyone has consciousness.
But it doesn't justify the other mistake. This does not mean you can deny

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some sort
of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective experience of
first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see that
there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of electrical
fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

Once more here you've interpreted the situation from a third person point of
view. I don't care what YOU can conclude from MY behavior. It's ONE'S own
perception of his OWN experience matters! and it is more obvious than any
other fact.

On 6/19/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of
first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show
up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

In all your reasoning you implicitely use consciousness for example
when
you
says When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, *I* can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.

Who/what is I ? Who/what is seeing ? What does it means for you to see
if
you have no inner representation of what you (hmmm if you're not
conscious,
you is not an appropriate word) see, what does it means to see at all ?

In all your reasonning you allude to I, this is what 1st pov is about
not
about you (the conscious being/knower) looking at another person as if
there
was no obsever (means you) in the observation.

Quentin

Our language is very primitive.  You can not decribe the reality with it.

If you have a computer robot with a camera and an arm, how should that
robot express itself to descibe what it observes?  Could the robot say: I
see a red brick and a blue brick, och when I take the blue brick and
places it on the red brick, then I see that the blue brick ```

### Re: Asifism

```The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how you
reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior  that a
third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first person
experience.

On 6/11/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:

What is the subjective experience then?

The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.
--
Torgny Tholerus

On 6/8/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The question, as I see it, is if there is anything more than just
atoms reacting with each other in our brains.  I claim that there is not
anything more.  The atoms reacting with each other explain fully my (and
your...) behaviour.  Our brains are very complicated structures, but it is
nothing supernatural with them.  Physics explains everything.

--

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The "subjective experience" is
just some sort of behaviour. You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior
that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first
person experience.

What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some
sort of behaviour. When you claim that you have "the subjective
experience of first person", I can see that you are just showing a
special kind of behaviour. You behave as if you have "the subjective
experience of first person". And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour. But in the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no "subjective
experience", there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior  that
a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first person
experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

Like I said earlier, this is pure nonsense as I have proof that I have inner
experience... I can't prove it to you because this is what this is all about,
you can't prove 1st person pov to others. And I don't see why the fact that a
computer is made of wire can't give it consciousness... there is no
implication at all.

Again denying the phenomena does not make it disappear... it's no explanation
at all.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Hello again,

Something which exists is contained/located somewhere.
The universe is not contained nor located anywhere, therefore the universe
does not exist.

This is a logical inconsistency and prove nothing, except that the logical
reasoning above is wrong.

Quentin

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior  that
a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first person
experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior  that
a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first person
experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

In all your reasoning you implicitely use consciousness for example when you
says When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, *I* can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.

Who/what is I ? Who/what is seeing ? What does it means for you to see if
you have no inner representation of what you (hmmm if you're not conscious,
you is not an appropriate word) see, what does it means to see at all ?

In all your reasonning you allude to I, this is what 1st pov is about not
about you (the conscious being/knower) looking at another person as if there
was no obsever (means you) in the observation.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.
But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior  that
a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first person
experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

Like I said earlier, this is pure nonsense as I have proof that I have inner
experience... I can't prove it to you because this is what this is all about,
you can't prove 1st person pov to others. And I don't see why the fact that a
computer is made of wire can't give it consciousness... there is no
implication at all.

Again denying the phenomena does not make it disappear... it's no explanation
at all.

Quentin

I think the point is that after all the behavior is explained, including brain
processes,  we will just say, See, that's the consciousness there.  Just as
after explaining metabolism and growth and reproduction we said, See, that's
life.  Some people still wanted to know where the life (i.e. elan vital)
was, but it seemed to be an uninteresting question of semantics.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience
of first person, I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective experience of
first
person.  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show
up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
that there is no subjective experience, there are just a lot of
electrical fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

In all your reasoning you implicitely use consciousness for example when
you
says When you claim that you have the subjective experience
of first person, *I* can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.

Who/what is I ? Who/what is seeing ? What does it means for you to see
if
you have no inner representation of what you (hmmm if you're not
conscious,
you is not an appropriate word) see, what does it means to see at all ?

In all your reasonning you allude to I, this is what 1st pov is about
not
about you (the conscious being/knower) looking at another person as if
there
was no obsever (means you) in the observation.

Quentin

Our language is very primitive.  You can not decribe the reality with it.

If you have a computer robot with a camera and an arm, how should that
robot express itself to descibe what it observes?  Could the robot say: I
see a red brick and a blue brick, och when I take the blue brick and
places it on the red brick, then I see that the blue brick is over the red
brick.?

But if the robot says this, then you will say that this proves that the
robot is conscious, because it uses the word I.

How shall the robot express itself, so it will be correct?  It this
possible?  Or is our language incapable of expressing reality?

We human beings are slaves under our language.  The language restricts out
thinking.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
TT; ' You behave as if you have the subjective
experience of first person. And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour.  But in the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no subjective
experience, there are just a lot of electrical phenomena interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

MP: But surely, if the computer is complicated enough to show up
'THE EXACT SAME' behaviour, then we do not know that 'there is
no first person experience'.

This is the very paradox of experience; the argument from
behaviour cuts BOTH ways.

The danger comes from putting that little word just in the
sentence. The fact is if there are a lot of electrical phenomena
[a really, really, BIG lot] then it is quite feasible that the
system may be responding to its own responses, as the
behaviourists like to say. I think the wisely placed betting
money is mainly going to that logical structure as prerequisite
for sentience of any sort. The embodiment, though, would need to
be in a massively parallel, multiply recursive, autonomous
learning system in order to have sufficient scope and depth of
experience to deal with interesting questions.

I heard someone on the radio the other day saying that Moore's
Law [doubling every 2 years] predicts that computers in about
2050 will have gross processing power similar to that of the
human brain. Well the architecture may be a bit of a hurdle, but
then again if each generation of computers acquires software
enabling them to participate in, if not actually direct, the
design of the next generation, it is feasible that during the
second half of the 21Century some computers may start asking US
why we think we are conscious.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see
how you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the
behavior  that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is
this first person experience.
What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience of first person, I can see that you are just showing a
special kind of behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective
experience of first person.  And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour.  But in the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no subjective
experience, there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.

But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior
that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first
person experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience of first person, I can see that you are just showing a
special kind of behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective
experience of first person.  And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour.  But in the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no subjective
experience, there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus

Like I said earlier, this is pure nonsense as I have proof that I have
inner experience... I can't prove it to you because this is what this is
all about, you can't prove 1st person pov to others. And I don't see why
the fact that a computer is made of wire can't give it consciousness...
there is no implication at all.

Again denying the phenomena does not make it disappear... it's no
explanation at all.

Quentin

I think the point is that after all the behavior is explained, including
brain processes,  we will just say, See, that's the consciousness there.
Just as after explaining metabolism and growth and reproduction we said,
See, that's life.  Some people still wanted to know where the life
(i.e. elan vital) was, but it seemed to be an uninteresting question of
semantics.

Brent Meeker

I don't think the comparison is fair... between 'elan vital' and
consciousness. I don't think consciousness is just a semantic question. As I
don't believe that you could pin point consciousness... until proved
otherwise.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:21:10 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Our language is very primitive.  You can not decribe the reality with it.

If you have a computer robot with a camera and an arm, how should that
robot express itself to descibe what it observes?  Could the robot say: I
see a red brick and a blue brick, och when I take the blue brick and
places it on the red brick, then I see that the blue brick is over the red
brick.?

It depends on the pov of the robots... but if after all turing test like I
could do against him, I'm not able to differentiate it with a human being...
I have to conclude it has consciousness, because to tell otherwise I would
need a proof that he's not conscious, and the only possible proof is that
I'll be able to differentiate it through 3rd persons tests, or we've just
said that it succeed every tests.

it is not the usage of the word 'I', it's all the concept related to it and
the understanding at a personal level of the word from the teller that
matter.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.
But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavior
that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is this first
person experience.

What you call the subjective experience of first person is just some
sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have the subjective
experience of first person, I can see that you are just showing a
special kind of behaviour.  You behave as if you have the subjective
experience of first person.  And it is possible for an enough
complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour.  But in the
case of the computer, you can see that there is no subjective
experience, there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.

--
Torgny Tholerus
Like I said earlier, this is pure nonsense as I have proof that I have
inner experience... I can't prove it to you because this is what this is
all about, you can't prove 1st person pov to others. And I don't see why
the fact that a computer is made of wire can't give it consciousness...
there is no implication at all.

Again denying the phenomena does not make it disappear... it's no
explanation at all.

Quentin
I think the point is that after all the behavior is explained, including
brain processes,  we will just say, See, that's the consciousness there.
Just as after explaining metabolism and growth and reproduction we said,
See, that's life.  Some people still wanted to know where the life
(i.e. elan vital) was, but it seemed to be an uninteresting question of
semantics.

Brent Meeker

I don't think the comparison is fair... between 'elan vital' and
consciousness.

I think it is fair.  Remember that in prospect people argued that chemistry and
physics could never explain life no matter how completely they described the
physical processes in a living thing.  All those cells and molecules and atoms
were inanimate, none of them had life - so they couldn't possibly explain the

I don't think consciousness is just a semantic question.

I didn't mean to imply that.  I meant that the residual question, after all the
behavior and processes are explained (answering very substantive questions)
will seem to be a matter of making semantic distinctions, like the question,
Is a virus alive?

As I
don't believe that you could pin point consciousness... until proved
otherwise.

No it won't be pin pointed.  It will be diffuse, an interaction of multiple
sensory and action processes and you won't be able to point to a single
location.  But, if we do succeed with our explanation, maybe we'll be able to
say, This being is conscious of this now and not conscious of that. or This
being does not have self-awareness and this one does.  And conscious and
aware will have well defined operational (3rd person) meanings.

Or maybe we'll discover that we have to talk in some other terms not yet
invented, just as our predecessors had to stop talking about animate and

Brent Meeker
One cannot guess the real difficulties of a problem before
having solved it.
--- Carl Ludwig Siegel

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:22:20AM +0800, Mark Peaty wrote:

I heard someone on the radio the other day saying that Moore's
Law [doubling every 2 years] predicts that computers in about
2050 will have gross processing power similar to that of the
human brain. Well the architecture may be a bit of a hurdle, but
then again if each generation of computers acquires software
enabling them to participate in, if not actually direct, the
design of the next generation, it is feasible that during the
second half of the 21Century some computers may start asking US
why we think we are conscious.

of a mouse brain about 10 times slower than realtime, on a
big IBM supercomputer. And Moore's law is actually doubling every 18
months, not 2 years (perhaps that explains the discrepancy in the
figures).

By about 2035, or so, your average PC will have the computational
power to simulate a human brain.

I don't believe computational power is enough, and that significant
software hurdles need to be overcome, but it is believable that this
could happen on that sort of time scale (assuming Moore's law doesn't
peter out).

--

A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Yes that is the issue and I don't think I read all the postings
on that thread at the time.
SP [Feb 21]: 'It is a complicated issue'

MP: Yep!

SP: 'So how do I know I'm not that special kind of
zombie or partial zombie now? I feel absolutely sure that I am
not but then
I would think that, wouldn't I?'

MP: I think the way this asifism thread has been going, it looks
like we have
A/  1POV which we experience and remember, and
B/  3POV which is a construction from inference and on-going,
informal, Turing tests of everyone we know.

We can never _know for certain_ that the other person is aware
of being here now in the same way that we ourselves are but we
get a leg-up from the mirror neurons that seem able to recognise
and emulate the behaviour sequences of people we see. [This is
the basis of most human learning, and the brain-side locus of
memetic existence, but that's another story.]

It is basically that people act like we do and share the same
description of the world which leads us to believe they are
conscious just like we are, and that's it! End of story; no
rocket science involved.

For what it is worth, my current surmise on blindsight: the
reason sufferers cannot report seeing the stimulus but seem to
act as if they ARE seeing it/them is to do with timing; whatever
it is that updates that part of their model of self in the world
which would be *the representation of their 3D spatial
relationship to the stimulus* is out of kilter.
Given that the strongest candidate for binding is synchronous,
resonant, mutual and reciprocal stimulation patterns, my guess
is that damage of some sort is preventing incorporation into the
model of the resonance patterns which embody that/those
aspects/s of the representation. I think that means the damage
could be in 'white matter', ie the communication between
cortical areas rather than within them. If the person is able to
see other parts of their visual field clearly then _clearly_
there must be effective linkage between the visual cortex and
the regions controlling eye movements. This implies that
information _about_ stimuli in the blinded part of the visual
field is available to some areas of visual cortex and thus  may
also be available from there to temporal lobe regions dealing
with language.

If the above is the case, and I reckon it is quite reasonable to
think so, then what the blind sight patients describe is
understandable. They can look for something which is described
to them sufficiently for the verbal information to evoke the
working memory storage of task and target information, and this
can effect the kind of unconscious searching activity which we
are used to. Well I am used to it any way! I hunt around the
house or garden for something named and may have no clearly
conscious pre-conceived image of it for example my offspring are
forever misplacing hair brushes, shoes, and so forth and I often
have the experience of looking at the place they turn out to be
- which strangely enough is always the last place I think to
look for them :-0 and the item just seems to appear out of nowhere.

The work of Benjamin Libet and others has shown that conscious
registration of something usually follows about 0.4 or 0.5
second after the primary sensory response occurs. With
blindsight patients the primary sensory response is occurring
and affecting various secondary areas in a useful way but not
all of that is available to update the navigational self-model.

This ties in with Oliver Sachs's work with many patients who
presented with unique and interesting deficiencies of awareness
who's autopsies revealed specific lesions within their brains.
It conforms with the idea that conscious mental experience is
what it is like to be certain processes within the brain. It
does not conform with the idea that a 'zombie' could be an
effective member of society. The key issue is that in order to
function as an effective, self-preserving, autonomous being, a
human has to be able to review her actions as soon as they occur
and be able to correct and behaviour that is sub optimal or not
in line with prior planning. Consciousness is simply what it is
like to be this reviewing process.

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 10/06/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

*   But I agree also that you are highly unlikely to come across
someone who can truthfully say 'I am not conscious'. It seems
totally self-contradictory: for example a person not just with
'hemi' neglect, but total neglect. How could such a person
encounter themselves or the world?
Or is there the possibility of something like so-called
blindsight in every sensory modality? For example: deaf-hearing,
numb-sensing, proprio-non-ception? This would imply a zombie
[without 'a life'] which survived ```

### Re: Asifism

```

Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07,  15:47, Torgny Tholerus a crit :

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that
totally deny
the existence of the consciousness?

An eliminativist.

"Eliminativist" is not a good term for persons like me, because that
term implies that you are eliminating an important part of reality.
But you can't eliminate something that does not exists. If you don't
believe in ghosts, are you then an eliminativist? If you don't believe
in Santa Claus, are you then an eliminativist, eliminating Santa Claus?

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism

```
2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Bruno Marchal skrev:

Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally deny the
existence of the consciousness?
An eliminativist.
Eliminativist is not a good term for persons like me, because that term
implies that you are eliminating an important part of reality.  But you
can't eliminate something that does not exists.  If you don't believe in
ghosts, are you then an eliminativist?  If you don't believe in Santa Claus,
are you then an eliminativist, eliminating Santa Claus?

--
Torgny Tholerus

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```On 14/06/07, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Eliminativist is not a good term for persons like me, because that
term
implies that you are eliminating an important part of reality.  But you
can't eliminate something that does not exists.  If you don't believe in
ghosts, are you then an eliminativist?  If you don't believe in Santa
Claus,
are you then an eliminativist, eliminating Santa Claus?

--
Torgny Tholerus

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.

Sure, but Torgny is just displaying the person-like behaviour of claiming to
be a person.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
2007/6/14, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

On 14/06/07, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Eliminativist is not a good term for persons like me, because that
term
implies that you are eliminating an important part of reality.  But you
can't eliminate something that does not exists.  If you don't believe in
ghosts, are you then an eliminativist?  If you don't believe in Santa
Claus,
are you then an eliminativist, eliminating Santa Claus?

--
Torgny Tholerus

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.

Sure, but Torgny is just displaying the person-like behaviour of claiming to
be a person.

Yes, in this case his writing is just garbage because it doesn't have
any meaning. I can't understand what it means for an unconscious thing
(for example a rock) to know something, to believe in something, to
have thought (especially this one, because it could be a definition of
consciousness, ie: something which has thought).

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Quentin Anciaux skrev:

2007/6/14, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

On 14/06/07, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.

Sure, but Torgny is just displaying the person-like behaviour of claiming to
be a person.

Yes, in this case his writing is just garbage because it doesn't have
any meaning. I can't understand what it means for an unconscious thing
(for example a rock) to know something, to believe in something, to
have thought (especially this one, because it could be a definition of
consciousness, ie: something which has thought).

If the rock behaves as if it knows something (if you say something to
the rock, and the rock gives you an intelligent answer), then you can
say that the rock knows something. When the rock behaves as if it
believes in something, then you can say that the rock believes in
something. If the rock behaves as if it has thought, then you can say
that the rock has thought.

If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be
able to use the same words ("know", believe", "think") to describe this
behaviour.

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism

```
2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Quentin Anciaux skrev:
2007/6/14, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

On 14/06/07, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.
Sure, but Torgny is just displaying the person-like behaviour of claiming
to
be a person.

Yes, in this case his writing is just garbage because it doesn't have
any meaning. I can't understand what it means for an unconscious thing
(for example a rock) to know something, to believe in something, to
have thought (especially this one, because it could be a definition of
consciousness, ie: something which has thought).

If the rock behaves as if it knows something (if you say something to the
rock, and the rock gives you an intelligent answer), then you can say that
the rock knows something.  When the rock behaves as if it believes in
something, then you can say that the rock believes in something.  If the
rock behaves as if it has thought, then you can say that the rock has
thought.

If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be able
to use the same words (know, believe, think) to describe this
behaviour.

--
Torgny Tholerus

If the rock know something and it behaves like it knows it, then it is
conscious.

Consciousness is that from a third person pov... nobody can know
others consciousness, conscious experience is a 1st person pov, and by
this not communicable in its entirety. I will never know what it is
like to be Torgny like you'll never know what it is like to be me,
these things are not 3rd person communicable in there entirety. You
must be it to know it.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 14, 12:19 pm, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.

Quentin, ISTM that your exchanges with Torgny and Stathis demonstrate
at points an all too prevalent experience of determinedly using the
same words to mean divergent things, often with the lack of definite
result.  In my dialogue with Bruno, I'm attempting to re-construct
'from the ground up' the semantics of 'exist', 'sense' and 'act',
amongst other key terms, in order that it may then be possible to re-
construct consistent meanings of 'know', 'believe', etc.  If there is
no agreement on such fundamentals, then these higher-order 'emergents'
are simply undefined.

From this perspective, I agree with you that a non-conscious entity
can neither 'know' nor 'believe'.  This is because a 'conscious'
entity is a participatory emergent supervening directly on fundamental
'sense-action', whereas Torgny's 'action-only' account could supervene
only on a domain in which 'action' is conceived as occurring in the
absence of 'sensing' between elements (i.e. like 'windowless monads'
that would require divine coordination).  If this is coherent
semantically (in other words logically tenable - which I doubt), such
a domain would necessarily be disconnected from our own in such a way
that Occam would demand its total discount by us.  Torgny, of course,
could not be communicating with us were he a participant in such a
domain, and in any case it is a category error of the first magnitude
to appropriate to such a domain outcomes (e.g. 'knowing') that
supervene on the 'sense' prerequisite of 'action'.

A computer or a rock could be counted as 'knowing' or 'believing' if
its behaviour were consistent with this, and moreover if the internal
causal organisation generating the knowing-believing-action sequence
emerged directly (i.e. supervened on)  fundamental levels of sense-
action.  Insofar as its behaviour was dependent on a 'software'
account, this would not hold, as 'software causality' is merely an
external imputation supplied by us, not one emerging organically from
the entity itself.  Our own knowing-believing-action sequences have
evolved from (and supervene on) such fundamental sense-action, and can
rely on no distinguished 'software account' (as an infinite number of
such accounts could be imputed to the activity of our brains).

David

2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Bruno Marchal skrev:

Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally deny the
existence of the consciousness?
An eliminativist.
Eliminativist is not a good term for persons like me, because that term
implies that you are eliminating an important part of reality.  But you
can't eliminate something that does not exists.  If you don't believe in
ghosts, are you then an eliminativist?  If you don't believe in Santa Claus,
are you then an eliminativist, eliminating Santa Claus?

--
Torgny Tholerus

Sure but I still don't understand what could mean 'to know', 'to
believe' for an entity which is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be able
to use the same words (know, believe, think) to describe this
behaviour.

If the rock know something and it behaves like it knows it, then it is
conscious.

If the rock does *not* know anything, *but* the rock behaves as if it
knows it, then it is reasonable to say that the rock knows it.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 14, 2:08 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

If the rock does *not* know anything, *but* the rock behaves as if it
knows it, then it is reasonable to say that the rock knows it.

Ah, but of course it is *not* reasonable to say this.  You account is
an 'action-only' account.  Consequently, it is 'reasonable' in such an
account to say only that the rock *acts* in a certain way.  You are
falling into a massive category error in appropriating an outcome such
as 'knowing', that supervenes on 'sensing', the prerequisite of
action, to a partial 'action-only' account.  Such 'action-only'
accounts are abstractions mediated by mental constructs - they are
*not* the reality to which they (partially) refer: if they were, such
a reality would be posited as 'relating' in the absence of 'sensing',
and thus 'knowing' would be cut out at the start.  But ask yourself:
are the semantics of a 'reality' that self-relates without self-
sensing coherent?  Can you 'react' to me without 'sensing' me?  If
not, then neither can the fundamental components on which you
supervene.

BTW, you are able to fall prey to such perceptual errors only because
your own mental activity supervenes on a sense-action substrate, like
the rest of us.  Get used to it!

David

Quentin Anciaux skrev: 2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be able
to use the same words (know, believe, think) to describe this
behaviour.

If the rock know something and it behaves like it knows it, then it is
conscious.

If the rock does *not* know anything, *but* the rock behaves as if it
knows it, then it is reasonable to say that the rock knows it.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:08:15 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be
able to use the same words (know, believe, think) to describe this
behaviour.

If the rock know something and it behaves like it knows it, then it is
conscious.

If the rock does *not* know anything, *but* the rock behaves as if it
knows it, then it is reasonable to say that the rock knows it.

I don't understand at all what it could means... The only thing you can
account with a 3rd pov is *behavior* and only that ! so if it acts like, it
is.

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Consciousness and Consistency (was Re: Asifism)

```

Le 11-juin-07, à 08:05, Tom Caylor a écrit :

On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
After Godel, Lob,  I do think that comp is the best we can hope to
save the notion of consciousness, free will, responsibility, qualia,
(first)-persons, and many notions like that.  Tthe only price: the
notion of matter looses is fundamental character, and we have to
explain matter without postulating it as usual ...). We have to come
back (assuming comp) to Plato, or better Plotinus, Proclus, ...

How is assuming comp any better than believing in the personal God?

Because in general it is hard to make third person testable statements
on personal God. Also, with comp, machines HAVE TO be theological
machine. That is, comp does not prevent some mystical (true but
unprovable) beliefs:  on the contrary, comp makes them obligatory (at
least for the ideally correct machines).

With comp we can argue that consciousness is already such a mystical
state. It is a state such that  you have visions making you belief in
a reality. Even cats can believe in invisible mouse, when hunting!

The closer thing to consciousness for the lobian machine is the state
of being consistent. With machine talking first order arithmetics, to
be consistent can be identified (actually by 1930 Godel Completeness
theorem) with having a unameable reality capable of satisfying your
set of beliefs. and to be consistent belongs to machines' corona [G*
minus G]. Indeed, by Godel second theorem, the machine statement to be
consistent is true (as we can know for simple machine) but unprovable
by the machine. After Godel we know that machine can understand/infer
that any of their beliefs in a reality has to be theological, even the
belief in a physical reality, or whatever.

Few people seems to realize the immensity of impact of Godel's
discovery (to begin by Godel himself as compared to Emil Post or Alan
Turing, ...). Before Godel, after the work of Cantor, mathematicians
were hoping to secure the many use of infinities in math by the
finistic use of their names in finistic theories. After Godel, we know
that we cannot secure the finistic realm itself and that we have to
invoke higher infinities just to talk on those finite things. Before
Godel we could have believe that the infinite can be secure by the
finite. After Godel we know we have to rely on the infinites just to
get a tiny scratch idea of what the finite things are capable of. This
has given rise to the branch of logic known as model theory, for
example, where infinite objects are used to give clues on finite
theories.

Note that I am not equating consciousness and consistency. But I am
open to the idea that consciousness is related to unconscious
(automatic, preprogrommed) self-interrogation of self-consistency. This
makes possible to interpret Helmholtz theory of perception (as
unconscious bet) in the lobian self-referential discourses.

Because we got that mystical state at birth since most probably
billions years, we tend to be a little blase about it, and this
explains why we have to do some work to abstract from long-time
prejudices, but then that is what science is all about (as Plato and
Descartes have seen).

(For the modalist, consciousness is not Dt, but Dt?. The
interrogation mark remind that Dt belongs to G* minus G.)

I have to go by now and I will try to explain soon why such an
inference of Dt? gives some advantage relatively to some very general
relative survival goal (mainly it gives a relative speed-up) ...

Comp seems like a lot of work.

Yes indeed. Two times more work than materialist are used to think. We
have to isolate a theory of mind AND then, it remains to test the
physical laws forced by that theory of mind, as the UDA and the
arithmetical UDA justifies (or should justify).

But the scientific attitude always asks for lot of works,as I just
said above.

C'mon Tom, we are not in a Holiday club here, are we?

:)

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Le 11-juin-07, à 13:24, David Nyman wrote in part: (I agree with the
non quoted part)

Are we any closer to agreement, mutatis terminoligical mutandis?  My
scheme does not take 'matter' to be fundamental, but rather an
emergent (with 'mind') from something prior that possesses the
characteristics of self-assertion, self-sensing, and self-action.  I
posit these because they are what is (Occamishly) required to save the
appearances.

... And here too.

If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,

We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
(Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
reflexivity power of the number's themselves.

with
its intrinsic (arithmetical) set of symmetry-breaking axioms,

OK (but again the symmetry-breaking is a consequence (too be sure
there remains technical problems ...)

then
COMP perhaps can stand for the process that drives this potential
towards emergent layers of self-action and self-sensing.

Yes. Perhaps, indeed.

It then
becomes an empirical programme whether AR+COMP possesses the synthetic
power to save all the necessary phenomena.

Exactly.

As you would wish it, I
imagine.

Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
the right physics, that would be nice, sure.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 12, 2:01 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,

We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
(Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
reflexivity power of the number's themselves.

I simply meant that in AR numbers 'assert themselves', in that they
are taken as being (in some sense) primitive rather than being merely
mental constructs (intuitionism, I think?)  Is this not so?

OK (but again the symmetry-breaking is a consequence (too be sure
there remains technical problems ...)

I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?

Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
the right physics, that would be nice, sure.

Agreed.  But actually I meant that you would wish it to be an
empirical matter (rather than Father Jack's 'ecumenical' one!)

It seems to me that overall in this exchange we seem to be more in
agreement than sometimes formerly. Would you still describe my
position as positing 'consciousness' as primitive?  That's not my own
intuition. Rather, I'm trying to reverse the finger we point towards
the 'external' world when we seek to indicate the direction of 'what
exists'. I'm also stressing the immediacy of the mutual 'grasp' that
self-motivates the elements of what is real, and which constitutes
simultaneously their 'awareness' and their 'causal power' - and
consequently our own.  Beyond this, we seem to be in substantial
agreement that all complexity, including of course reflexive self-
consciousness', is necessarily a higher-order emergent from such basic
givens (which seem to me, in some form at least, intuitively
unavoidable).

David

Le 11-juin-07, à 13:24, David Nyman wrote in part: (I agree with the
non quoted part)

Are we any closer to agreement, mutatis terminoligical mutandis?  My
scheme does not take 'matter' to be fundamental, but rather an
emergent (with 'mind') from something prior that possesses the
characteristics of self-assertion, self-sensing, and self-action.  I
posit these because they are what is (Occamishly) required to save the
appearances.

... And here too.

If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,

We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
(Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
reflexivity power of the number's themselves.

with
its intrinsic (arithmetical) set of symmetry-breaking axioms,

OK (but again the symmetry-breaking is a consequence (too be sure
there remains technical problems ...)

then
COMP perhaps can stand for the process that drives this potential
towards emergent layers of self-action and self-sensing.

Yes. Perhaps, indeed.

It then
becomes an empirical programme whether AR+COMP possesses the synthetic
power to save all the necessary phenomena.

Exactly.

As you would wish it, I
imagine.

Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
the right physics, that would be nice, sure.

Bruno

htttp://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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
After Godel, Lob,  I do think that comp is the best we can hope to
save the notion of consciousness, free will, responsibility, qualia,
(first)-persons, and many notions like that.  Tthe only price: the
notion of matter looses is fundamental character, and we have to
explain matter without postulating it as usual ...). We have to come
back (assuming comp) to Plato, or better Plotinus, Proclus, ...

How is assuming comp any better than believing in the personal God?
Comp seems like a lot of work.

Tom

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
What is the subjective experience then?

The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.
--
Torgny Tholerus

On 6/8/07, Torgny
Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

The question, as I see it, is
if there is anything "more" than just
atoms reacting with each other in our brains. I claim that there is
not anything "more". The atoms reacting with each other explain fully
my (and your...) behaviour. Our brains are very complicated
structures, but it is nothing supernatural with them. Physics explains
everything.

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

```

### Re: Asifism

```

If you don't have subjective (inner) experiences... then yes, you are
a zombie, and you should go to a museum... You 'll be then the first
real zombie on earth !

Quentin

2007/6/11, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
What is the subjective experience then?
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour.  You can make
computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.
--
Torgny Tholerus

On 6/8/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The question, as I see it, is if there is anything more than just atoms
reacting with each other in our brains.  I claim that there is not anything
more.  The atoms reacting with each other explain fully my (and your...)
behaviour.  Our brains are very complicated structures, but it is nothing
supernatural with them.  Physics explains everything.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 10, 1:10 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Up to here comp basically agree (modulo misunderstanding of my part,
sure).
I mean that what you say is not just consistent with comp (which is not
a lot after Godel: even inconsistency is consistent with comp!) but
probably near truth.

Phew!  This will help with what follows, I hope.

Well, perhaps OK, unless by field you assume geometry at the start.
(Geometry like physics is secondary with comp).
You could perhaps elaborate of what you mean by field.

In this case by 'field' I simply mean a self-asserting (i.e.
primitive) subjective ground (in my view equating to the least we can
say about existence per se) conceived as logically prior to any
differentiation.  Thereafter we and all phenomena (including geometry)
emerge by some self-motivated action of symmetry breaking (e.g.
vibrating strings, COMP?).  Field may well be the wrong word.

Careful: comp cannot equate consciousness and computation. It can only
equate consciousness with higher order emergent modality (emergent on
a continuum of computations).

Yes, I agree, in the sense of 'reflexive self-consciousness'. I meant
rather that no consciousness of whatever sort can be associated with
purely 'computational' processes within a 'physical computer', as
opposed to those actions that emerge 'organically' from self-acting
processes of symmetry breaking.  In my scheme, the sense-action that
we experience as conscious subjects (and that of everything else we
observe) must inherit its awareness ('sense') and its causal power
('action') directly from fundamental self-sensing and self-acting
symmetry-breaking.

The reason is that computational
'causation' depends on the introjection of 'rules' from a context
external to the computed 'world',

I don't see why.

My use of the term 'self' here is intended (Occamishly) to halt
explanatory regression, and this is why we must not rely on superadded
'rules' coming from 'outside the system' (if so, we must go 'further
out' to incorporate them). 'Computation', in the sense of the
programmed action of a 'physical computer', exists only at a
metaphorical level, one that we *impute* to the behaviour of a system,
rather than one which emerges from its intrinsic sense-action.  In
this sense, the 'rules of programmed behaviour' are introjected from
our mental context, which is *external* to the computer itself.

and hence loses contact both with
intrinsic causal self-motivation and the fundamental linkage of felt-
sense and action.

You are quick here ...

Have I slowed down at all? What I'm saying is that as layers of
phenomena emerge self-actingly and self-sensingly (self-graspingly?),
a distinction must always be made between what is an 'organic'
emergent - which can be the basis for quasi-independent sensing and
acting, inherited directly from the fundamental level - and what is an
imputed or metaphorical narrative - meaning it exists merely as a
model *within* an organic emergent. In that sense it has 'lost
contact' with the direct sense-action from which all higher-level
sensing and action emerge.  All the content of our consciousness
exists in the form of such narratives, models or metaphors - my
*model* of 'Bruno' doesn't have independent consciousness *as such*.
Likewise, a 'program' (whether intended by a programmer, or imputed to
random activity) is merely a mental introject imposed *by us* on
organic action whose intrinsic felt-sense is independent of this
interpretation.

If you'll bear with me, Bruno, it may be possible to reconcile my
scheme with AR+COMP.  The 'realism' of AR posits that everything real
(necessarily including the subjectively real) emerges from what is
axiomatically intrinsic to AR.  ISTM then that the self-sensing, self-
acting process of differentiation or symmetry-breaking looks like the
detailed working-out of AR's 'active potential' through COMP.  I
really feel that much of this is an implicit aspect of your scheme,
because, by analogy with my argument above, AR+COMP *must* be
(Occamishly) self-sensing, self-acting and self-justifying so that we
who are posited to emerge from it can inherit precisely those
characteristics. Else, we would have nothing left but a perversely
incoherent appeal to something 'external' to this universe of
explanation.

If one uses 'computation' in the sense merely of the behaviour of a
'physical' computer (already a higher-level emergent in either
scheme), then purely metaphorical interpretations of its behaviour do
indeed 'lose contact', as I argue above, with its organically
inherited self-sense-action.  But if by 'computation' we mean the
fundamental emergence of phenomena by AR+COMP, then in such a scheme
we retain the ability to track self-sense-action through layers of
emergence.  We can also differentiate those narratives which 'exist'
metaphorically as mental models and hence could never account for real
states of existence-consciousness.  C++ classes or zombies ```

### Re: Asifism

```
Mark Peaty skrev:
MP: There is possibly a loose end or two here and perhaps
clarification is needed, yet again:

* Or this could conceivably be construed as a 'state of grace'
in that Torgny is operating with no mental capacity being wasted
on self-talk or internal commentary: 'just doing' whatever needs
to be done and 'just being' what he needs to be; very Zen!

To discuss the nature of consciousness is waste of time, because
consciousness or mind is not an entity that exists in the real world.
The only thing that exists in the real world is matter.  What you can
talk about is consciouslike behaviour, objects that behave as if they
were conscious, objects that claim that they are conscious.
* Then again it may be that I have misunderstood TT's grammar
and that what he is denying is simply the separate existence of
something called 'consciousness'. If that be the case then I
would not argue because I agree that the subjective impression
of being here now is simply what it is like to be part of the
processing the brain does, ie updating the model of self in the
world.

Yes, I simpy deny the separate existence of something called
'consciousness'.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```On 11/06/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Mark Peaty skrev:
* Then again it may be that I have misunderstood TT's grammar
and that what he is denying is simply the separate existence of
something called 'consciousness'. If that be the case then I
would not argue because I agree that the subjective impression
of being here now is simply what it is like to be part of the
processing the brain does, ie updating the model of self in the
world.

Yes, I simpy deny the separate existence of something called
'consciousness'.

You could deny that there is any difference between conscious behaviour and
conscious-like behaviour, equivalent to denying the *separate* existence of
consciousness.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 1, 6:04 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I look at myself in the third person view.  I then see a lot of protons
reacting with eachother, and I see how they explain my behavior and the words
I produce.  I see how they cause me saying I am conscious!  I have a free
will!  I am happy!.

Torgny, you give yourself away in the phrase 'I look at myself in the
third person view'.  The 3rd-person world thus revealed to you can
only be encountered in the way you describe within a 1st-person pov
where it is modelled and grasped.  Given that you directly refer to
this view in your justification, and further given that you have
passed, as far as I'm concerned, the Turing Test, you indeed do
possess such a 1st-person pov.  Consequently you are as conscious as I
am, and you are just doing what Galen Strawson calls 'looking-
glassing' - i.e. using a term in such a way that whatever one means
by it, it excludes what the term means.

It is a category error of the first magnitude to believe that the 3rd-
person world simply exists 'out there by itself'. To claim this is to
try to claim that there is nothing, and nobody to care about it - the
ultimate attempt at self-defeating nihilism.  The source of the error
- ironically - is that it's the 1st-person pov alone that allows us to
create the 3rd-person models that we are then at liberty to mistake
for *that which is modelled*.  This very act conjures up the 'zombie
3rd-person world' *which exists only in our imagination* (what Bruno I
think calls 1st-person plural).  What is in fact 'out there' beyond
the 1st person - i.e. whatever is unconscious from one's own pov - is
*not* a 3rd-person world.  It is the rest of the *participatory*
world, within which one gets a vote solely in virtue of the fact that
one is emergently constituted by participatory 'elements'  (i.e.
process and structure).  These, by directly *grasping* each other,
without mediation, are the foundation of everything that 'knows' and
'acts'.

If you're not participating, you can't exist, or know, or act.  Sorry
- welcome to the club!

David

Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 01-juin-07, à 14:35, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :The only
thing that exists is a lot of protons, neutrons, and electrons reacting with
each other inside my brain.Are you *sure*?
What would that mean?
I look at myself in the third person view.  I then see a lot of protons
reacting with eachother, and I see how they explain my behavior and the words
I produce.  I see how they cause me saying I am conscious!  I have a free
will!  I am happy!.  This is all that is.  This explains everything.
--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```On 10/06/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

*   But I agree also that you are highly unlikely to come across
someone who can truthfully say 'I am not conscious'. It seems
totally self-contradictory: for example a person not just with
'hemi' neglect, but total neglect. How could such a person
encounter themselves or the world?
Or is there the possibility of something like so-called
blindsight in every sensory modality? For example: deaf-hearing,
numb-sensing, proprio-non-ception? This would imply a zombie
[without 'a life'] which survived by making apparently random
guesses about everything yet getting significantly more than
chance success in each modality.

See this discussion with Jesse Mazer a few months ago on cortical blindness:

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Le 10-juin-07, à 01:49, David Nyman a écrit :

On Jun 9, 2:10 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 08-juin-07, à 18:39, Jef Allbright a écrit :

I don't believe that people in this list would take consciousness as a
primary reality, except perhaps those who singles out the third
universal soul hypostasis (the first person, alias the one described
by Bp  p in the lobian interview) like George Levy, David, etc.

Since my name has popped up I'll stop lurking and come clean!  I've
defence of 'panpsychism' in Consciousness and its place in Nature.
His view is that any 'emergent' phenomenon must supervene on
fundamental properties of the same type - e.g. 'liquidity' is a
characteristic behaviour of a fluid that simply supervenes on the
objective characteristics of its constituent molecules, which in turn
supervenes on quantum-level phenomena and so on down to superstrings
or whatever.  But there is no analogous narrative in which it is
correspondingly obvious that 1st-person *experience* should ever
'emerge' from any objective or 3rd-person description, in his view.

Also in mine.  Reviewing some of my earlier posts on this subject, I
would now say that my view is that our 1st-person experience is
privileged direct evidence (i.e. the *only* direct evidence we have)
that we, and all phenomena of which we are aware, emerge through
differentiation of a subjective existential field. Such
differentiation may be termed 'sense-action', because it is
simultaneously the self-sensing relationships of (what Strawson terms)
'ultimates' (e.g. vibrational strings) that emerge through
differentiation, and the source of all action and structure.  We
abstract our notion of 'physical law' from the inter-relations of such
ultimates, but it is crucial that we do not concretise such 'law' as
some real superadded influence introjected from 'outside' the
existential field.  Rather, we take the field for what it is, and
accept that it feels and does as we find it.  This is simply wielding
Occam's razor with precision to prevent an infinite regress of
'explanation'. Ultimately, to preserve the appearances, existence must
necessarily be self-actualising , self-motivating, and self-sensing.

By rooting sense-action in the ultimates, we can now embed our own
intuitive sensing and motivation firmly where it needs to be in
ultimate reality.  Fundamentally, we do what we do for (something
like) the reasons we believe, and we feel what we feel because that is
(something like) how reality ultimately feels about it.  Our actions
emerge from ultimate action, and our sensing emerges from ultimate
sensing.  This is crucial for questions of 'free will' and suffering
(which I do not put in scare quotes).  Our 'will' is a complex
emergent of ultimate will-to-action, and our painful experiences are
directly inherited from underlying layers of sense-action that
simultaneously motivate our consequential actions.

By contrast, the 'non-conscious' zombie is existentially and causally
disconnected - as postulated, it is abstracted from sense-action; it
cannot see, hear, or feel and hence cannot enact (except in *our*
imagination).  No self-sensing = no relationship = no action.  The
poor creature is a free-standing 'physical abstraction' - the
uninhabited husk of a self-actualised subject.  It's the notion you're
left with when you posit an 'externalised world' (i.e. a model) in
pure intellectual abstraction from concrete self-actualisation.

Up to here comp basically agree (modulo misunderstanding of my part,
sure).
I mean that what you say is not just consistent with comp (which is not
a lot after Godel: even inconsistency is consistent with comp!) but
probably near truth.

With comp neither matter nor mind can be taken as primitive or primary
reality.

My approach proposes something like a fundamental subjective field as
'primitive' (in an Occamish way).  Such a field is not yet mind nor
matter, but both 'mind' and 'matter' emerge from it through
differentiation, with characteristics that supervene naturally on
those proposed as primitive.  That is: its fundamental action is self-
motivated and self-sensing, and consequently all complex emergents are
experienced as self-motivated and self-sensing.

Well, perhaps OK, unless by field you assume geometry at the start.
(Geometry like physics is secondary with comp).
You could perhaps elaborate of what you mean by field.

If valid, this
approach is a knock-down argument against the equation of
consciousness with computation.

Careful: comp cannot equate consciousness and computation. It can only
equate consciousness with higher order emergent modality (emergent on
a continuum of computations).

The reason is that computational
'causation' depends on the introjection of 'rules' from a context
external to the computed 'world',

I don't see why.

```

### Re: Asifism

```What is the subjective experience then?

On 6/8/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Quentin Anciaux skrev:

On Friday 08 June 2007 17:37:06 Torgny Tholerus wrote:

What is the problem?

If a computer behaves as if it knows anything, what is the problem with
that?  That type of behaviour increases the probability for the computer
to survive, so the natural selection will favour that type of behaviour.

I claim that if it behaves as if, then it means it has consciousness...
Philosophical zombie (which is what it is all about) are not possible... If
it is impossible to discern it with what we define as conscious (and when I
say impossible, I mean there exists no test that can show between the
presuposed zombie and a conscious being a difference of behavior) then there
is no point whatsover you can say to prove that one is conscious and one is
not. Either both are conscious or both aren't... While you say you're not
conscious... I am, therefore you're conscious.

The question, as I see it, is if there is anything more than just atoms
reacting with each other in our brains.  I claim that there is not anything
more.  The atoms reacting with each other explain fully my (and your...)
behaviour.  Our brains are very complicated structures, but it is nothing
supernatural with them.  Physics explains everything.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh,

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Le 08-juin-07, à 18:39, Jef Allbright a écrit :

While I would point out that physics cannot possibly explain
everything, being a necessarily constrained subjective model of
reality, I would like to reinforce the point about consciousness.
Consciousness certainly exists, as a description relating a set of
observations having to do with subjective awareness, but there is
nothing requiring that we assign it the status of an ontological
entity.

The importance of being precise! Now I agree with you, although I did
BTW distinguishing subjective awareness  and consciousness is a
1004-fallacy ... at this stage.

Also, to say that consciousness exists as a description could be
misleading. It could exist as a phenomenon.
I don't believe that people in this list would take consciousness as a
primary reality, except perhaps those who singles out the third
universal soul hypostasis (the first person, alias the one described
by Bp  p in the lobian interview) like George Levy, David, etc.

With comp neither matter nor mind can be taken as primitive or primary
reality.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
SP:
'I've seen quite a few deluded people who believe that they are
no-one who thinks they're unconscious...'

MP: There is possibly a loose end or two here and perhaps
clarification is needed, yet again:

*   It may well be that history is in the making, Torgny Tholerus
is breaking new ground with Earth shaking results [sorry :-],
and kudos will be yours if you can book him in first for a
consultation [or dissection if it comes to that].

*   Or this could conceivably be construed as a 'state of grace'
in that Torgny is operating with no mental capacity being wasted
on self-talk or internal commentary: 'just doing' whatever needs
to be done and 'just being' what he needs to be; very Zen!

*   Then again it may be that I have misunderstood TT's grammar
and that what he is denying is simply the separate existence of
something called 'consciousness'. If that be the case then I
would not argue because I agree that the subjective impression
of being here now is simply what it is like to be part of the
processing the brain does, ie updating the model of self in the
world.

*   But I agree also that you are highly unlikely to come across
someone who can truthfully say 'I am not conscious'. It seems
totally self-contradictory: for example a person not just with
'hemi' neglect, but total neglect. How could such a person
encounter themselves or the world?
Or is there the possibility of something like so-called
blindsight in every sensory modality? For example: deaf-hearing,
numb-sensing, proprio-non-ception? This would imply a zombie
[without 'a life'] which survived by making apparently random
guesses about everything yet getting significantly more than
chance success in each modality.

A scary thought!

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 09/06/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally deny
the existence of the consciousness?'

MP: I think the word you are looking for is deluded.

I've seen quite a few deluded people who believe that they are dead, but
no-one who thinks they're unconscious...  something to keep an eye out for.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```Mark,
you put your finger usually on the 'not-so-obvious' (but relevant). I
confess to not having memorized all the posts concerning conscious(ness?) on
this list since 1996 or so, but looked up the topic prior to that.
I found a historically developing noumenon, unidentified and a loose cannon,
everybody including whatever he needed for his theoretical justification,
some only static (awareness, etc.) some also dynamic (control of
life-processes), as our enriching cognitive inventory served the theorists
over the past 3000 years.
I tried to generalize the concept and posted my result several times here
and elsewhere.
(Responding to information, i.e. to perception of a difference not only
human not only even mental,).

Important is that 'conscious' (especially of) is NOT the adjective for
consciousness, which in turn is NOT the opposite of 'unconscious(ness)'.

Do we have this involved discussion, because we did not agree what we are
talking about? Do we agree in What is a ZOMBIE? the fictional figment that
does not exist? if it 'does not have Ccness, then what is that Ccness it
does not have? It is not a computer: a computer has (???) Ccness.
I asked such questions on at least 10 lists and the best answer was:
everybody knows what it is.Now I am not asking what Ccness is, I ask what
are we talking about, then comes the next: do we have a matching mindset
(believe system) for the discussion (the lack of which preempts discussions
between faithful and faithless).
*
Mark , these questions are not really aimed at you. I know: Stathis, Bruno,
Brent, Torgny, and some more on this list have answers, but are those

What I would prefer is to talk about the elements we include in this
noumenon as single nouimena, each on its own merit and meaning,
irrespectively of any adjustment to other elements. That comes later.

John

On 6/9/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

SP:
'I've seen quite a few deluded people who believe that they are
no-one who thinks they're unconscious...'

MP: There is possibly a loose end or two here and perhaps
clarification is needed, yet again:

*   It may well be that history is in the making, Torgny Tholerus
is breaking new ground with Earth shaking results [sorry :-],
and kudos will be yours if you can book him in first for a
consultation [or dissection if it comes to that].

*   Or this could conceivably be construed as a 'state of grace'
in that Torgny is operating with no mental capacity being wasted
on self-talk or internal commentary: 'just doing' whatever needs
to be done and 'just being' what he needs to be; very Zen!

*   Then again it may be that I have misunderstood TT's grammar
and that what he is denying is simply the separate existence of
something called 'consciousness'. If that be the case then I
would not argue because I agree that the subjective impression
of being here now is simply what it is like to be part of the
processing the brain does, ie updating the model of self in the
world.

*   But I agree also that you are highly unlikely to come across
someone who can truthfully say 'I am not conscious'. It seems
totally self-contradictory: for example a person not just with
'hemi' neglect, but total neglect. How could such a person
encounter themselves or the world?
Or is there the possibility of something like so-called
blindsight in every sensory modality? For example: deaf-hearing,
numb-sensing, proprio-non-ception? This would imply a zombie
[without 'a life'] which survived by making apparently random
guesses about everything yet getting significantly more than
chance success in each modality.

A scary thought!

Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 09/06/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally
deny
the existence of the consciousness?'

MP: I think the word you are looking for is deluded.

I've seen quite a few deluded people who believe that they are dead, but
no-one who thinks they're unconscious...  something to keep an eye out
for.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
On Jun 9, 2:10 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 08-juin-07, à 18:39, Jef Allbright a écrit :

I don't believe that people in this list would take consciousness as a
primary reality, except perhaps those who singles out the third
universal soul hypostasis (the first person, alias the one described
by Bp  p in the lobian interview) like George Levy, David, etc.

Since my name has popped up I'll stop lurking and come clean!  I've
defence of 'panpsychism' in Consciousness and its place in Nature.
His view is that any 'emergent' phenomenon must supervene on
fundamental properties of the same type - e.g. 'liquidity' is a
characteristic behaviour of a fluid that simply supervenes on the
objective characteristics of its constituent molecules, which in turn
supervenes on quantum-level phenomena and so on down to superstrings
or whatever.  But there is no analogous narrative in which it is
correspondingly obvious that 1st-person *experience* should ever
'emerge' from any objective or 3rd-person description, in his view.

Also in mine.  Reviewing some of my earlier posts on this subject, I
would now say that my view is that our 1st-person experience is
privileged direct evidence (i.e. the *only* direct evidence we have)
that we, and all phenomena of which we are aware, emerge through
differentiation of a subjective existential field. Such
differentiation may be termed 'sense-action', because it is
simultaneously the self-sensing relationships of (what Strawson terms)
'ultimates' (e.g. vibrational strings) that emerge through
differentiation, and the source of all action and structure.  We
abstract our notion of 'physical law' from the inter-relations of such
ultimates, but it is crucial that we do not concretise such 'law' as
some real superadded influence introjected from 'outside' the
existential field.  Rather, we take the field for what it is, and
accept that it feels and does as we find it.  This is simply wielding
Occam's razor with precision to prevent an infinite regress of
'explanation'. Ultimately, to preserve the appearances, existence must
necessarily be self-actualising , self-motivating, and self-sensing.

By rooting sense-action in the ultimates, we can now embed our own
intuitive sensing and motivation firmly where it needs to be in
ultimate reality.  Fundamentally, we do what we do for (something
like) the reasons we believe, and we feel what we feel because that is
(something like) how reality ultimately feels about it.  Our actions
emerge from ultimate action, and our sensing emerges from ultimate
sensing.  This is crucial for questions of 'free will' and suffering
(which I do not put in scare quotes).  Our 'will' is a complex
emergent of ultimate will-to-action, and our painful experiences are
directly inherited from underlying layers of sense-action that
simultaneously motivate our consequential actions.

By contrast, the 'non-conscious' zombie is existentially and causally
disconnected - as postulated, it is abstracted from sense-action; it
cannot see, hear, or feel and hence cannot enact (except in *our*
imagination).  No self-sensing = no relationship = no action.  The
poor creature is a free-standing 'physical abstraction' - the
uninhabited husk of a self-actualised subject.  It's the notion you're
left with when you posit an 'externalised world' (i.e. a model) in
pure intellectual abstraction from concrete self-actualisation.

With comp neither matter nor mind can be taken as primitive or primary
reality.

My approach proposes something like a fundamental subjective field as
'primitive' (in an Occamish way).  Such a field is not yet mind nor
matter, but both 'mind' and 'matter' emerge from it through
differentiation, with characteristics that supervene naturally on
those proposed as primitive.  That is: its fundamental action is self-
motivated and self-sensing, and consequently all complex emergents are
experienced as self-motivated and self-sensing. If valid, this
approach is a knock-down argument against the equation of
consciousness with computation.  The reason is that computational
'causation' depends on the introjection of 'rules' from a context
external to the computed 'world', and hence loses contact both with
intrinsic causal self-motivation and the fundamental linkage of felt-
sense and action.  Hence any felt-sense a computer may possess as a
concrete object must necessarily be independent of whatever purely
programmed 'actions' it may be instantiating. Also, the notion of,
say, a rock implementing any computation, and hence potentially any
attached consciousness, is likewise struck down by the lack of
coordination between ultimate sense-action and the notional
computational content.

I've written the above fairly quickly and it's probably not very well
expressed, but if anyone's interested I'd be happy to debate and
enlarge.  But it expresses why I think Torgny's position is absolutely
```

### Re: Asifism

```
I think it can be useful to look at the problem of consciousness from
a third person point of view, doing so you would conclude we are a
bunch of apes aware of our surroundings wondering why it is we are
aware of our surroundings.  If you explored further you would see
plenty of reasons to explain why those apes were aware; they have
senses which take inputs from the environment and brains which process
those inputs to create an internal representation, about which they
can speak (and wonder) about.  I can see the path of logic that Torngy
is following: qualia are simply manifestations of physical events -
there is nothing magical or special about - their reality is an
illusion - they don't exist.  However even if qualia/consciousness is
an elaborate illusion then it is that illusion they are referring to
when they claim to be conscious.

Jason

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 04-juin-07, à 14:10, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Pain is the same thing as the pain center in the brain being
stimulated.

In the best case your theory will work for you and other zombie.
It cannot work for those who admit the 1/3 distinction or the
mind/body apparent distinction.
You are on the fringe of being an eliminativist philosopher. What I
do appreciate is that you offer your theory for yourself. Let me ask
ask to a zombie, but: do you think *we* are conscious?

When I look at you (in 3rd person view), I see that you are
constructed in exactly the same way as I am.  So I know why you say
that you are conscious.  I know nothing sure about you, but the most
probable conclusion is that you are equally unconscious as I am.

Actually I do think like Quentin. I don't think you can *know* anything
if you are not conscious. Knowing is a sort of truth awareness, albeit
incommunicable as such.

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally deny
the existence of the consciousness?

An eliminativist.
(But I don't understand what you mean by persons like me, which is a
first person notion in need of some implicit notion of consciousness).

In some country, until rather recently, some doctor did operate babies
without anesthesia, because they did believe that baby are not
conscious. Now, they have changed their mind, and babies are treated by
surgeon with anesthesia. Does this controverse makes sense for someone
who deny totally the existence of consciousness?

(I also deny the existence of infinity...)

If you deny only what is called in the literature the actual
infinite, that is the idea of a close and well defined infinite entity
or set, then you could be an intuitionist, or a finitist, or a
computationalist. What I call comp, or digital mechanism, is called
finitism by Judson Webb (ref in my thesis or any of my papers).

If you deny the potential infinite as well, (that is the idea that some
set can be generated forever although not in any actual form, like when
se say: {1, 2, 3 *ETC*}, then you belong to the few who are
ultrafinitist.  I don't believe that the very notion of ultrafinitism
could be defined in any ultrafinitist way, unless you are materialist
and physicalist, meaning that when you say that you don't believe in
infinity, you really are only saying that you don't believe in *primary
physical*  infinities. Note that by UDA, comp or finitism entails there
are no physical primary entities at all, neither finite nor infinite.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```

Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07,  15:47, Torgny Tholerus a crit :
When I look at you (in 3rd person view), I see that you
are
constructed in exactly the same way as I am. So I know why you say
that you are conscious. I know nothing sure about you, but the most
probable conclusion is that you are equally unconscious as I am.

Actually I do think like Quentin. I don't think you can *know*
anything if you are not conscious. Knowing is a sort of truth
awareness, albeit incommunicable as such.

By "knowing" I mean the same thing as when you say that a computer
"knows" what are the countries in Europa if you ask the computer: "What
are the countries in Europa?", and the computer answers: "Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Finland, ...". I mean nothing more with the term
"know" than just this, you have some data stored, and you can use this
data in some way. "Knowing" === "Using knowledge".

What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that
totally deny
the existence of the consciousness?

An eliminativist.
(But I don't understand what you mean by "persons like me", which is a
first person notion in need of some implicit notion of consciousness).

You can look at me as a computer that behave as if it has
consciousness. And I am referring to other persons behaving like me...
In some country, until rather recently, some doctor did
operate babies
without anesthesia, because they did believe that baby are not
conscious. Now, they have changed their mind, and babies are treated
by surgeon with anesthesia. Does this controverse makes sense for
someone who deny totally the existence of consciousness?

The important thing in this situation is if the pain center in the
brain is stimulated or not. When you operate babies (or animals)
without anesthesia, then surely the pain center is stimulated, so that
is definitely wrong.

(I also deny the existence of infinity...)

If you deny only what is called in the literature the "actual
infinite", that is the idea of a close and well defined infinite
entity or set, then you could be an intuitionist, or a finitist, or a
computationalist. What I call "comp", or digital mechanism, is called
"finitism" by Judson Webb (ref in my thesis or any of my papers).

I deny the "actual infinte". It is impossible to construct an infinite
set, a set where you have a mapping from every element to a true subset.
If you deny the potential infinite as well, (that is the
idea that
some set can be generated forever although not in any actual form,
like when se say: {1, 2, 3 *ETC*}, then you belong to the few who are
"ultrafinitist". I don't believe that the very notion of
ultrafinitism could be defined in any ultrafinitist way, unless you
are materialist and physicalist, meaning that when you say that you
don't believe in infinity, you really are only saying that you don't
believe in *primary physical* infinities. Note that by UDA, comp or
finitism entails there are no physical primary entities at all,
neither finite nor infinite.

I accept a sort of "unlimitness". If you have a set of numbers, you
can
always increase that set by adding 1 to the biggest number in the set,
and then add this new number to the set. And you can do this as many
times as you want. But the new, increased, set will always be finite,
independant of how many times you add new numbers to the set, you will
never reach an infinite set.

If you have the set of ALL natural numbers, then there is always a
biggest number in that set, and you can always create a new natural
number that is not member of the set of ALL natural numbers, by adding
1 to the biggest number in the set.

--
Torgny Tholerus

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

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Hi,

On Friday 08 June 2007 14:49:11 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

When I look at you (in 3rd person view), I see that you are constructed in
exactly the same way as I am. So I know why you say that you are conscious.
I know nothing sure about you, but the most probable conclusion is that you
are equally unconscious as I am.

Actually I do think like Quentin. I don't think you can *know* anything if
you are not conscious. Knowing is a sort of truth awareness, albeit
incommunicable as such.

By knowing I mean the same thing as when you say that a computer knows
what are the countries in Europa if you ask the computer: What are the
countries in Europa?, and the computer answers: Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Finland,   I mean nothing more with the term know than just this,
you have some data stored, and you can use this data in some way.
Knowing === Using knowledge.

I see that you like to redifine terms with your on definition.

Taking your definition, a database engine can know... which is totally wrong.

A database engine store information and has methods to retrieve it, but the
database engine itself doesn't know anything about the information it
stores... to know it, it must understand it, have awareness of the
information. Knowing demands a knower, a consciousness.

The definition of to know in contemporary dictionnary is:

#  To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
# To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
# To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in:
knows how to cook.
# To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
# To have experience of: a black stubble that had known no razor (William
Faulkner).
#

1. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
2. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.

# To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
# To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.

All these definitions requires a knower, a knower is something which has
awareness of the information it knows. Your definition does not enter in the
common definition of to know something.

Beside, I don't see how denying consciousness answer the problem...
Redefining terms does not make the problem goes away.

Regards,
Quentin Anciaux

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

```

### Re: Asifism

```
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Beside, I don't see how denying consciousness answer the problem...
Redefining terms does not make the problem goes away.

What is the problem?

If a computer behaves as if it knows anything, what is the problem with
that?  That type of behaviour increases the probability for the computer
to survive, so the natural selection will favour that type of behaviour.

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at