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

2012-10-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb  

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


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


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


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

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

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

Brent

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



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

2012-10-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal  


How does comp include subjectivity ?

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


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


Hi Roger Clough, 


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

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

? 

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

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

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




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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1. 

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

Assuming comp things should be like that: 

NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS  MATTER 

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

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

Bruno 



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

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

2012-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Roger Clough,

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


Hi Bruno Marchal


How does comp include subjectivity ?


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


It presupposes subjectivity at the start. You might read:

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



Hi Stathis Papaioannou

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


I will answer this, of course Stathis can comment.

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

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

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


Bruno




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


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



Hi Roger Clough,


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


Hi Bruno Marchal

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


?

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

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

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





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


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



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



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



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


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

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


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

COMP+ WEAK-MATERIALISM == 0 = 1.

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

Assuming comp things should be like that:

NUMBER === CONSCIOUSNESS  MATTER


IMHO mind is constructive mathematics,
creating