Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: Saying that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a computer... I agree. My defense of Roger was of the type "devil's advocate". I know. I also notice that you don't join bullying bandwagons (even when the target somewhat deserves it) and you deserve kudos for that. Thanks Telmo. Bruno Telmo. Roger, like many, is just unaware that machines are more than we thought in the 19th century. Bruno Telmo. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > > > Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ? For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories, run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional execution (if/then expressions). > Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons > > by Roger Clough > > Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the > brain > is a monad Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these things we found out since Leibniz was around. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp >>> measure >>> problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be what we >>> should experience a priori, by the FPI. >>> >>> So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the white >>> rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's "Occam >>> catastrophe". >>> >>> Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p, and >>> the >>> FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of >>> consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this >>> problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in >>> arithmetic. >>> It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter more >>> consciousness than creating or producing it. >> >> >> I'm ok with all this, and as I said before I'm not on the materialist >> camp -- I don't believe in the neurological origin of consciousness, >> for example. >> >> My problem here is with the statement that neurons are monads in the >> Leibnizian sense. > > > That does not make any sense, indeed. > > > > >> It throws under the rug a lot of stuff we know about >> neurons. I agree that my answer was on the 3p level, but the existence >> of these 3p mechanisms has to be explained by a TOE, correct? > > > Correct, but with comp we are assuming some 3p level, like (sigma_1) > arithmetic. > And then we can explain that such tiny assumption is not derivable from any > other theory (unless it is Turing equivalent). > > It looks like magic, but the numbers explains why it is impossible to > understand where the numbers comes from, they are truly mysterious, somehow. > > > > > > >> Saying >> that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't >> claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is >> only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god >> that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a >> computer... > > > I agree. > > My defense of Roger was of the type "devil's advocate". I know. I also notice that you don't join bullying bandwagons (even when the target somewhat deserves it) and you deserve kudos for that. Telmo. > Roger, like many, is > just unaware that machines are more than we thought in the 19th century. > > Bruno > > > > > > >> >> Telmo. >> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Telmo. > and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived > (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect > the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox > > Olbers' paradox > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Jump to: navigation, search > > > "Olbers' paradox in action > In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after > the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also > called > the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the > night > sky > conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static > universe. > The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a > non-static > universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and > populated > by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at > the > (very bright) > surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This > contradicts the observed > darkness of the night." > > -- > You received this message bec
Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
On 16 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ? For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories, run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional execution (if/then expressions). Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons by Roger Clough Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the brain is a monad Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these things we found out since Leibniz was around. But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp measure problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be what we should experience a priori, by the FPI. So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the white rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's "Occam catastrophe". Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p, and the FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in arithmetic. It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter more consciousness than creating or producing it. I'm ok with all this, and as I said before I'm not on the materialist camp -- I don't believe in the neurological origin of consciousness, for example. My problem here is with the statement that neurons are monads in the Leibnizian sense. That does not make any sense, indeed. It throws under the rug a lot of stuff we know about neurons. I agree that my answer was on the 3p level, but the existence of these 3p mechanisms has to be explained by a TOE, correct? Correct, but with comp we are assuming some 3p level, like (sigma_1) arithmetic. And then we can explain that such tiny assumption is not derivable from any other theory (unless it is Turing equivalent). It looks like magic, but the numbers explains why it is impossible to understand where the numbers comes from, they are truly mysterious, somehow. Saying that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a computer... I agree. My defense of Roger was of the type "devil's advocate". Roger, like many, is just unaware that machines are more than we thought in the 19th century. Bruno Telmo. Bruno Telmo. and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox Olbers' paradox From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Olbers' paradox in action In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegr
Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ? >> >> >> For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories, >> run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in >> basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional >> execution (if/then expressions). >> >>> Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons >>> >>> by Roger Clough >>> >>> Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the >>> brain >>> is a monad >> >> >> Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know >> that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have >> activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks >> and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be >> Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these >> things we found out since Leibniz was around. > > > > But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp measure > problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be what we > should experience a priori, by the FPI. > > So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the white > rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's "Occam catastrophe". > > Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p, and the > FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of > consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this > problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in arithmetic. > It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter more > consciousness than creating or producing it. I'm ok with all this, and as I said before I'm not on the materialist camp -- I don't believe in the neurological origin of consciousness, for example. My problem here is with the statement that neurons are monads in the Leibnizian sense. It throws under the rug a lot of stuff we know about neurons. I agree that my answer was on the 3p level, but the existence of these 3p mechanisms has to be explained by a TOE, correct? Saying that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a computer... Telmo. > > Bruno > > > > > >> >> Telmo. >> >>> and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived >>> (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect >>> the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD >>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox >>> >>> Olbers' paradox >>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >>> Jump to: navigation, search >>> >>> >>> "Olbers' paradox in action >>> In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after >>> the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also called >>> the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the >>> night >>> sky >>> conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. >>> The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a >>> non-static >>> universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and >>> populated >>> by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the >>> (very bright) >>> surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This >>> contradicts the observed >>> darkness of the night." >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@go
Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ? For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories, run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional execution (if/then expressions). Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons by Roger Clough Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the brain is a monad Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these things we found out since Leibniz was around. But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp measure problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be what we should experience a priori, by the FPI. So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the white rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's "Occam catastrophe". Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p, and the FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in arithmetic. It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter more consciousness than creating or producing it. Bruno Telmo. and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox Olbers' paradox From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Olbers' paradox in action In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ? For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories, run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional execution (if/then expressions). > Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons > > by Roger Clough > > Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the brain > is a monad Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these things we found out since Leibniz was around. Telmo. > and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived > (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect > the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox > > Olbers' paradox > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Jump to: navigation, search > > > "Olbers' paradox in action > In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after > the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also called > the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night > sky > conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. > The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a > non-static > universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and populated > by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the > (very bright) > surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This > contradicts the observed > darkness of the night." > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons by Roger Clough Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the brain is a monad and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox Olbers' paradox >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Olbers' paradox in action In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758?1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
